Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PETITION

House Building (Worcestershire)

Mr. Peter Luff: There is great concern in Worcestershire about the Government's refusal to reduce new house building targets for the county, and about the county council's insistence on building a new town of about 5,000 houses, in Wychavon district council in my constituency of Mid-Worcestershire.
The petition, from the parish councils of my constituency—Bretforton, Broadway, Charlton, Church Lench, Cropthorne, Drakes Broughton, Elmbridge, Elmley Lovett, Fladbury, Hartlebury, Honeybourne, Kington and Dormston, North Claines, North and Middle Littleton, Norton-juxta-Kempsey, Offenham, Peopleton, Pinvin, Salwarpe, South Littleton, Stock and Bradley, Tibberton, Upton Snodsbury, Whittington and Wyre Piddle—contains some 500 signatures and reads:
The petition of the residents of Mid Worcestershire declares that we are concerned about the proposals to allow significant new housing in our countryside.
The petitioners therefore request the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to ensure that more homes are built on brown land in urban areas, instead of on undeveloped countryside, to breathe new life into our cities and towns and to protect the Worcestershire countryside for future generations.

To lie upon the Table.

Road Traffic Reduction (National Targets) Bill

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Cynog Dafis: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I know that many Bills are waiting to be debated this morning, and that several hon. Members—for diverse reasons—want to speak, so I do not intend to be long. I can afford to be brief, because the Bill enjoyed detailed consideration on Second Reading and in Committee, and reasonably detailed consideration on Report.
Before saying a word about the Bill, I thank all those who have ensured that it has come thus far—to the threshold of completing its progress in the House. First, I reiterate my thanks to the Minister for Transport in London, very ably assisted by her officials. She has been an active supporter of the road traffic reduction campaign, and has been keen to find a way of ensuring that the Bill could be enacted. I am grateful for her co-operation.
Secondly, I thank the host of hon. Members in all parties who have supported and attended—some are attending today—to ensure that there were no hiccups on the way, and especially those who gave up several hours of their time to attend the Committee. The support from senior members of all parties has been much appreciated.
I also thank those who have had reservations about the Bill, but who have nevertheless not blocked its passage; I trust that their forbearance will continue today. The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) has had reservations, but after expressing them in considerable detail and obtaining some useful amendments—clause 2(4) is the result of his amendment—he has allowed the Bill to proceed. He and I have had a few cross words, but I believe that neither of us is the worse for it, and I am grateful for his tolerance, if not his ungrudging assent to the Bill's passage.
The main thanks, however, must go to the very many people who have campaigned for this important Bill, in a variety of ways. I hope that the Government will not accuse me of plagiarism if I claim—and do so before they do—that this is a people's Bill.

Mr. Eric Forth: Oh, no.

Mr. Dafis: I am sorry about that. I thought that it was worth trying to get it in.

Mr. Peter Brooke: Would the hon. Gentleman share with the House the Welsh for "the people's Bill"?

Mr. Dafis: "Mesur y bobl" would be the phrase that we would use. I am sure the House will recognise that the word "bobl" comes from the same root as "people".
The rest of what I have to say can be presented briefly as if in reply to three questions. Why should we reduce road traffic? By how much should it be reduced? How can it be reduced? First, why? We have been through all that, but I reiterate that the Bill, if implemented, will save significant numbers of lives, including the lives of young children, among whom road accidents are one of the main


causes of death. That is a striking and serious statistic. It will significantly reduce ill health; again, particularly among children, as the evidence from Great Ormond Street hospital demonstrated.
Incidentally, by saving in those two areas, the Bill will save significant sums of money. The measure will improve the quality of social life, which is seriously disrupted—in ways that we cannot always measure—by heavy traffic. It is an environmental imperative to reduce road traffic. That can be done without causing economic damage—indeed, it can be done in a way that brings significant economic benefit and creates significant numbers of jobs.
Secondly, by how much should road traffic be reduced? That is important, because the Bill does not contain targets. The Bill, as originally drafted, proposed a reduction of 10 per cent. on 1990 levels by 2010, and an interim target of a 5 per cent. reduction halfway through that period. That is a challenge, but, as Professor John Whitelegg has demonstrated and as other transport experts are willing to show, it can be done. However, the process must begin soon. That is an important message for the Government. The Deputy Prime Minister has acknowledged it, and he has stated that he intends to have
more people using public transport and far fewer journeys by car
by June 2003.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: The hon. Gentleman and I agree strongly on this matter, and we agree also that it is easy to have fine words. Everybody would like to see congestion and emissions reduced. Does he agree that, if we wish to see action, we must set targets, as we have done on so many other issues?

Mr. Dafis: Targets are an essential element in achieving change in environmental policy—there is no doubt about that. The issue that has been considered is whether targets should be included in the Bill. Targets will emerge as a consequence of the strategies that the Bill will engender.

Mr. Edward Garner: The hon. Gentleman is referring to clause 2 and targets, but it is unclear whether the Secretary of State is to publish and report targets that contain within them an element of local targeting. There is a deficiency in the Bill, which would allow the Secretary of State to publish bland figures for the whole of the UK—whatever that may be in the near future. However, the targets will have no effect whatever, because the traffic in the hon. Gentleman's part of the country may be entirely different from that in the Minister's constituency, for example. Does he envisage the Bill encouraging the Secretary of State to localise targets?

Mr. Dafis: The hon. and learned Gentleman may not know enough about current legislation. Following the willingness of the previous Government to respond, road traffic reduction legislation applies to local authorities, and requires authorities to set targets. This Bill is called the Road Traffic Reduction (National Targets) Bill—in this case, "National" applies to Wales, Scotland and England.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: And Northern Ireland.

Mr. Dafis: Yes, although that is through a different mechanism. We have the strategic framework for delivering road traffic reduction locally, but the point of the Bill was to place that within an overall framework.
I was referring to the fact that the Deputy Prime Minister is on record as saying that targets are important in this field, and that he wishes to see significant reductions in car journeys by June 2003. It is worth mentioning that a 10 per cent. reduction is, in all probability, necessary to enable the Government to meet their other important target—the 20 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2010. I was pleased that the Government announced that they were to stick to that target, as announced by the Minister for Science, Energy and Industry during the debate on energy policy on Wednesday. If we are serious about the matter, we need a significant reduction of about 10 per cent.
My third question was, how can we achieve that reduction? John Whitelegg is one of a number of people who have shown that it can be achieved, and he has described the measures that can be used. He has said that a vast choice of measures could be adopted to achieve the 10 per cent. reduction, many of which are already in use. We are not seeking to reinvent the wheel—we are talking about using tried and tested methods. The methods that John Whitelegg suggests include: land use and planning policies; parking policies; bus promotion policies; travelcards; cycle facilities; and traffic management.
On freight, Professor Whitelegg has mentioned city logistics policies, which amount to the co-ordinating of the movement of goods to retail centres within towns. That policy has brought about significant reductions in some European countries. The use of new technology in dynamic scheduling and vehicle routing could enable freight to be delivered more efficiently and over fewer miles, by providing the necessary information. Professor Whitelegg emphasised that that can be achieved without significant increases in fuel prices, although he advocates such increases.

Mr. Owen Paterson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in real life, the only mechanism that will work is the price mechanism?

Mr. Dafis: I am afraid that I have to disagree. Nobody would deny that price influences people's behaviour. However, it would be dangerous to imagine that the price mechanism alone will deliver the results that we are seeking. Environmental groups have argued forcibly that, if we tried that, the social consequences and the public reaction would be negative, and we would not achieve the right outcome. Other, positive measures, such as investment, are needed. John Whitelegg has stated clearly that he believes that reductions can be achieved without increasing fuel prices, if the political will and a willingness to create the strategies exist.
I mentioned the three questions, and I have responded briefly to them. I wish to refer now to clause 2(2). Some have argued that clause 2(2) fatally weakens the Bill, by making provision for the Secretary of State not to have to set traffic reduction targets in certain circumstances. To be honest, I should prefer it if subsection (2) were not in the Bill. However, it is a concession that had to be made in order to obtain Government support. I understand why the Government wanted it in the Bill. I do not accept that it fatally weakens the Bill.
As the title of the Bill states, its purpose is to reduce road traffic. If, following its passage, the Government failed to set targets for road traffic reduction, they would fail to implement the purport of the Bill, if not the letter of it. I do not think that the Government would want to be guilty of that.

Mr. Christopher Chope: The hon. Gentleman says that the Bill would not be fatally flawed by the inclusion of clause 2(2) in its present form, but does he agree that clause 2(2) enables the Government to get off the hook of having to produce any targets whatever? If the Government in their absolute discretion think that other measures are appropriate, they can just use other measures. Will the hon. Gentleman try to move an amendment in the other place to ensure that the Bill achieves the purpose of requiring the Government to impose targets?

Mr. Dafis: That was a useful intervention. Of course, I cannot move an amendment in the other place, although I could encourage someone to do so. Perhaps the Government will consider an amendment at this late stage, even though the draft has been agreed. The hon. Gentleman seems to suggest inserting the word "and" instead of "or" in line 13, so that the subsection would read:
other targets, and other measures
instead of
other targets, or other measures".
That is an interesting idea. If the Minister would consider it and respond positively, I should be very pleased.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman is saying, in effect, that the Bill is completely useless as a measure of compulsion. If the Government ignore it, there may merely be a degree of moral opprobrium on them for doing so. Would there not have been more moral pressure on the Government if, when the Minister wrote to the hon. Gentleman saying that the Government would not oppose Second Reading provided that he agreed to a number of detailed amendments, he had told her what she could do with that idea? Would not that have exerted moral pressure? Instead, he has given her a cover story.

Mr. Dafis: The hon. Gentleman has made his point, but I am not moved to agree with him. I do not intend to announce at this stage, on Third Reading, that the Bill is a useless exercise. It is an extremely useful exercise and it is important because it requires the Government to set targets, except in certain circumstances, which I shall deal with next. The impetus for the Bill has come from broad grass-roots support.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Having signed up to the Kyoto agreement for CO2 reduction, the Government will have to specify the areas in which reductions will be made to achieve those targets. One of the key areas is emissions from cars. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government will have to set and publish their reduction targets?

Mr. Dafis: I could not agree more. There is no doubt that road traffic reduction is crucial if the Government are to achieve their Kyoto target and their own voluntary target, which is much more ambitious. The Government will have to set targets, and the Bill provides a useful framework.
The Secretary of State would be released from the duty to set targets for road traffic reduction only if he or she could demonstrate clearly that other targets or other measures could better achieve that. The phrase used in the Bill is:
more appropriate for the purpose of reducing".
The Secretary of State would have to show that other measures were better for reducing the adverse impact of road traffic than the reduction of traffic itself. Those are the precise circumstances in which the Secretary of State would be released from that duty.
I do not believe that it could be demonstrated that other measures were more appropriate, bearing in mind the criteria listed in subsection (3). I do not think that they could be met or that the adverse effect of road traffic could be reduced without reducing road traffic. I do not believe that any Secretary of State could show that that could be done in any other way. In my view, meeting those important criteria involves reducing road traffic.
The adverse effects of road traffic listed in subsection (3) are: the emission of gases that contribute to climate change; the effects on air quality; the effects on health; traffic congestion; the effects on land and biodiversity; the danger to other road users; and social impacts. If those effects could be reduced in any other way, which I do not believe, it would be an extremely important achievement, and the enactment of the Bill would be amply justified.
I am proud to have been associated with the Bill. For the last time, I commend it to the House.

Mr. Tom Brake: This is an appropriate time for the Third Reading of the Bill. As some hon. Members may have heard this morning, in the United Kingdom the incidence of asthma among children is the highest in the world. Although pollution is not necessarily the cause of asthma, it is accepted as the trigger for asthma.
I shall restrict my comments to clause 2. I regret that the Bill has no teeth. The targets have been extracted. A 10 per cent. target in the Bill—the same target as has been agreed for local authorities—could have been the Government's first step towards the 20 per cent. CO2 reduction target to which they are committed, as they have recently restated.
The Government's actions to date in relation to road traffic reduction and the reduction of CO2 emissions are disappointing. The Deputy Prime Minister recently announced an extra £500 million for public transport. I understand from a letter that I received from the Library that that £500 million is in fact £475 million. The figure was rounded up to £500 million. It is a novel approach to accounting that, for the purpose of an announcement, the figure was rounded up by £25 million to make it sound larger.
We read in the press today that Ministers and officials who are going to the green transport conference—where, among other things, green cars will be on show—are to


be ferried there in 60 limousines. They will not catch the train from Manchester to Crewe because apparently the station in Crewe is in such a dilapidated state that the Government are scared to show it to foreign Ministers and officials, so they will travel in 60 limousines, none of which is gas-powered—they are all standard, petrol-driven limousines.
The Government said that consideration would be given to one of the amendments that I tabled, together with the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), which related to a statement that the Deputy Prime Minister made after 1 May, when he was already in power. He stated that if, at the end of this Parliament, traffic levels were not held at 1997 levels, he would have failed, and that he would be held to account. That is not reflected in the Bill.
I accept that the Bill shows that, in principle, the Government are committed to doing something about reducing road traffic. It is definitely an improvement on the attitude of the previous Government, whose enthusiasm for road building would have done Jeremy Clarkson proud.

Mr. Robathan: The hon. Gentleman was not in the House during the previous Parliament, but I was. I assure him that the previous Government were similarly committed to doing something about road traffic. Sadly, commitments to acting to reduce road traffic do not always achieve results.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. On Third Reading, hon. Members should discuss what is in the Bill and not what previous Governments have attempted to do.

Mr. Brake: I shall draw my remarks to a close. The Liberal Democrats give the Bill a very cautious welcome, because we think that it is the first very small step towards achieving reductions in traffic and CO2 emissions.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I congratulate the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis) on bringing his Bill to Third Reading. He was correct to acknowledge the help that he has received from the Bill's supporters and from those who asked questions about the legislation's detail and approach. I take this opportunity to commend the Minister on the good humour that she has shown throughout most of the process. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). I regret one or two things that I said during our exchanges in Committee, and I hope that he will overlook them.
It is important to recognise that the Bill repeats at national level existing local authority provisions. Local authorities will have the greatest power to act to reduce road traffic because they are responsible for 96 per cent. of roads in this country. Central Government can assist not by saying that all the road traffic reduction targets will be achieved through their own actions, but by affecting the popular culture. People should not suppose that the road traffic reduction Bill, which provides an opportunity for the Government to introduce a strategy and publish

targets, signals an end to all road building. Most of our constituents know that we must create more traffic canals that divert traffic away from residential, school and shopping areas.
We need a bypass in my constituency. We also need a roundabout on the A259, so that people can access the village of Ferring without having to travel an extra two or three miles because they cannot cross the dual carriageway. I am sure that hon. Members could repeat other similar examples. In my previous constituency of Eltham in south-east London, the building of the Rochester Way relief road prevented traffic from going through many rat runs and, to that extent, provided a more direct route.
I do not argue that that should be the main plank of our traffic reduction strategy. Although most people would like to see a reduction in road traffic, and many could, with some thought and rearrangement, have better lives by travelling less far, less often, they should not suppose that the Bill is anti anything: it is simply a means of trying to achieve a better life, as the hon. Member for Ceredigion pointed out.
Today is not the day to air particular niggles across the Chamber. I am not sure that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) acknowledged the fact that, regardless of what may happen at one Transport Ministers' conference in Crewe, the present Government are mildly interested in making arrangements themselves, as well as trying to invigilate the actions of others, that will lead to a better life. I believe that that is the only serious reason for entering political service.
I shall spell out the things that I believe the Bill will achieve when enacted. Ministers should be prepared to say when they have got some targets right and, upon reflection, some wrong. When I was a junior Minister at the Department of Transport, the then Secretary of State set targets for road casualty reduction. We were correct in the targets that we set for deaths and serious injuries, but we were wrong about our target for slight injuries—I shall not explore that point in detail now, as it is outside the scope of the Bill. The review process will help us to focus on what is achievable.
There is also the "how" question. The hon. Member for Ceredigion explained why it is sensible to have a strategy for reducing road traffic—which, in the main, involves reducing unnecessary road traffic. He did not talk a great deal about how that would be achieved—although he spent some time on how much could be achieved. I shall refer to the "how" question.
It is clear that we must examine journeys to school by teachers, pupils and parents in urban and semi-urban areas. I like the idea of the virtual bus: the child with the longest bearable walk to school is escorted by a parent, and other children join the walk along the way until there is a crocodile walking to school.
One of the biggest changes that I have seen in my 22 or 23 years in the House is that most teachers now drive to school. I do not believe that they needed to make that switch; I do not think that it has done much good. The same applies to journeys to work. Not everyone can change his or her job.

Mr. Damian Green: Has my hon. Friend observed the fact that many schools—certainly those in


my constituency—have special car parking areas for sixth formers because more pupils, as well as teachers, are driving to school?

Mr. Bottomley: It is not my intention to claim that a particular teacher or pupil should not drive to school. However, I believe that most teachers and many pupils and their parents should not become involved in regular driving runs. It is worth discussing how we can provide more people with better transport alternatives. In many cases, that will involve using two legs to walk or to cycle.
I refer to the issue of journeys to work. Not all people can change where they live, their jobs or their place of work—I shall not discuss teleworking in any detail. It is clear that people should consider their journey to work when deciding to live or work elsewhere. I have not the slightest idea why people are concerned about whether their new home is in council band C, D or E—which may make a difference of about £100 a year—when they are happy to spend £2,000 or £3,000 a year travelling to work by car or by public transport. That will have a far greater impact on their free time and their wallet or purse.

Mr. Forth: Perhaps such people have made their own judgment—which was freely taken—and are prepared to endure a lengthy journey to work, at the cost that my hon. Friend mentioned, so that their life style reflects their priorities. Do they not have that right?

Mr. Bottomley: I agree with my right hon. Friend completely, as I usually do. My point is that people may like to think about those issues. Before the Hayes bypass was built and the M25 was completed, I used to use the example of someone working at Heathrow who took 40 minutes to travel four miles to Heathrow from Hayes. Now that better roads and routes have been opened, that person takes 40 minutes to drive 40 miles. I leave people with that choice, as my right hon. Friend suggests. I shall not take too many more interventions, but I must give way to one of the well-known bicyclists in the Chamber.

Mr. Robathan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Of course individuals must choose, but does he agree that Governments have a part to play in influencing their choice? Is not that what we are talking about in the Bill?

Mr. Bottomley: Yes, but the Government's actions will be limited. The Bill does not urge people to change everything that they are doing: it simply tries to find a strategy that allows for some change. I shall make a comparison between road traffic reduction and road casualty reduction. It is worth remembering that the Government identified the issues and helped people to make decisions about matters that were causing them the greatest distress, handicap and disadvantage. The Government did not reduce drink driving by young men by two thirds in two years through the actions of policemen, prisons or courts: that result was achieved by allowing people to make their own decisions. That is the most important message that we can send.
Governments can make some difference. That point is made by the fact that visitors will be able to travel on the Jubilee line underground extension to the largest conference seen in this country, at the millennium exhibition site on the Greenwich peninsula. When the American Bar Association comes to this country in

the summer of 2000, if its members decide that they want to go from central London to the millennium dome on the same morning, the Jubilee line extension will be able to cope with them all in an hour and a half. That would not be possible with a motorway. Some of what the Government engender will make a difference, but most of it will be through a slightly different pattern of decision making.
I do not want to put too much emphasis on reducing emissions. It is true that some of the things that have been put in hand, partly by regulation and partly by commercial self-interest, will lead quite quickly to a reduction in motor vehicle emissions—for example, fuel efficiency improvements.
I declare an interest as chairman of a medium-tech company that counts cars going into car parks. The changes to car parking enforcement in London and other cities mean that no longer are there people driving round Berkeley square for two or three hours trying to find a space on a yellow line. Without enforcement, all the yellow line spaces were taken up. When one enforces the yellow line rules, people start to look for parking meters. When one prices parking in such a way that there is always a space, people get to their space first time rather than having to drive round for 20 minutes or so. That is a minor example.
I hope that we shall not go for road pricing for urban congestion, or for motorways, although there are good arguments for both. If people want to see the reasons, they are in the Transport Select Committee's reports.
The most important issue is whether people can make choices that improve their lives. We should not go always for disincentives. We should look for incentives that contribute to a better life, not just for people in cities or towns but for those in rural areas.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is a distinguished former Minister responsible for roads. In the rural areas that I represent, and in the surrounding suburban areas—for example, Bedford—improving the roads so that people may gain access—I hope, by public transport—is important. I hope that he will agree that the Bill is not anti-roads. Good bypasses and good new roads are very much part of what he and I and the House are trying to achieve.

Mr. Bottomley: One of my brothers-in-law, who runs a railway, says that we have to change our approach to some of the railways. In the old days, when people did not have private transport and most of them lived in inner-city areas, getting to a central railway station was easy. Nowadays, most people do not live in inner-city areas. They have to get to the railway station by some form of road transport, whether that is bus, taxi or car, and we shall have to contemplate parkway stations, so that people with cars can reach a place where they can get on a train without causing chaos in the inner-city area. Those arguments can be developed in greater depth on another occasion.
I finish on what I call the Milton Keynes mistake, which was a Government mistake, but not one of this or the previous Government's making. Milton Keynes should have been built using the original proposal for a figure-of-eight railway line linking up the villages. One


continuous railway line would have allowed everyone to get from the villages to the centre of Milton Keynes by public transport relatively simply.
Such a concept brings together public and private partnership in a way that provides advantages to all sorts of people. It allows the village to be the centre of a community, and the town centre to be the place of congregation and work, and of links to the rest of the world.
That was a planning issue spotted by the architect at the time, but it should have been carried through and duplicated—not imposed. Finding out the greatest advantage to the individual and the group, to my mind, sums up progressive conservatism.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I received a larger postbag on this Bill than on many measures, and what was impressive was that many of the letters were individually written. Constituents sometimes feel that they have discharged their democratic responsibilities by scribbling an illegible signature at the bottom of a badly reproduced letter and sending it off to their Member of Parliament "demanding action", and think that it has made a valid contribution to the debate. I do not think that it does, and sometimes I have not endeared myself to my constituents by pointing that out. Whether that has anything to do with the fact that my majority is now 281 as opposed to 9,500 I do not know. Somebody once said that a coward dies a thousand deaths and a brave man dies but once. I have done it a few more times than that, but there we are.
There have been a great many letters. Some of them have obviously been orchestrated, but many have not, and that is quite impressive. The curious thing about it is that the letters that I have received quote the title of the Bill, but they are not talking about this Bill at all. What they are talking about is what they would like to see in a Bill called something like the Road Traffic Reduction (National Targets) Bill. Sometimes, I have had to write back and say, "You're making a splendid case for a Bill, but I have to tell you that it is not the Bill before the House of Commons."

Mr. Forth: I am not asking my hon. Friend to divulge too many of the secrets of his postbag, but perhaps he would say what proportion of his electorate has taken the initiative to write to him to express their interest in the Bill. So that we can get some idea of the true concern among his constituents, given that he said that it is a large response of an unusual kind, can he give us some idea of the scale?

Mr. Nicholls: When I said that it was a large response, I meant large compared with other people who write to me about other issues. I have not totalled it. I think that it is probably into three figures. It is probably about 100 people. There is a school of thought—hon. Members sometimes take comfort from this if they have larger majorities than mine—that, if one gets 100 letters on an issue, it must mean that 74,900 people are not worried about it either way. Although that can be comforting, I am not so sure that it is true. Letter writing is a form of contribution to public life, if it is done well and is not just signing something that is pre-written.
In the same way that local political parties and local charities are run by a tiny number of people in any constituency, there is usually a great groundswell behind a campaign. One often says that behind a Conservative poster there is one vote and behind a Liberal poster there are 10. Although there may not be many actual letters, the matter does interest people. What troubles me is that, when they have written to me about the Bill, they have said that it will do things that it simply will not. People say that the Bill must be passed because, when it is, there will be substantial road traffic reductions.
In some ways, that is quite chilling because, by and large, the people who have written live in the three main towns in my constituency. They are not writing from Dartmoor. They are not writing from a rural location where, if they were not able to drive, it would be quite impossible for them to get in and out of a town to buy things. In a stern and sometimes condescending attitude, people will write that others are making unnecessary journeys. We all know the definition of an unnecessary journey: a journey that somebody else makes that we would not need to make ourselves.
We also know that road traffic reduction targets are all very well but, as a perk of one's ministerial job—I do not criticise the Minister for this, as I thoroughly enjoyed it—one has a ministerial car. I suppose that some members of the present Government are so genuinely caught up on their own convictions that they are putting in applications for ministerial bicycles, with baskets in the front for their red boxes, but by and large they are going around in ministerial cars. I find it remarkable when people write to me to say, "It's got to be done, as people are making unnecessary journeys," and when people unrealistically think that the taxpayer could or should provide a system of public transport that is so comprehensive that it could replace the service that people have to provide for themselves in their own village.
At times, I write back and say, "Hang on a second"—because I will live dangerously—"I disagree with what you want. I think you are simply wrong. I have to tell you that this Bill is not it." I usually get letters back to tell me that I have not read the Bill properly. It does not take long to read this Bill, and I shall come back to that point in a moment. I sometimes write back and ask which part of the Bill will reduce road traffic. So far, I have not received a single reply to that, for two reasons. Either people simply do not know—that will be most—or some will have taken the trouble to go down to the public library and read the Bill, which will not take them long.
One of the refreshing features of the Bill is that it can probably be understood on first reading. It might be necessary, however, to read it twice, for a reason to which I shall refer. That having been done, the reader can understand it. Anyone who goes to a public library thinking, "I'm going to persuade my Member of Parliament to vote for the Bill on Second Reading because it will bring about major road traffic reductions in my area," will be disappointed when he comes to read it.
When the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis) spoke in favour of the motion that the Bill be read the Third time—I hope that he will not mind me saying that I think he did it extremely well—he set out a case for a Bill that is not before the House. I jotted down some of the things that the hon. Gentleman said. If it was in order


for him to make such remarks, even though they might not have related directly to the Bill, it must be in order for me to refer to them in passing.
The hon. Gentleman said that the Bill will save lives, improve health and reduce road traffic. I am sure that there is such a Bill out there somewhere, ready to be written. I could even have a go at preparing such a measure now. I could share with the House, if it were in order to do so—I accept that it would not—what that Bill might be. I can assure the House, however, that it would not be the Bill that is before us. This Bill will do none of the things that the hon. Gentleman claims it will, to which I have referred. Instead, the Bill is about aspirations. It is an attempt to refer obliquely to the Bill that might have been, but will not be.
I do not criticise the hon. Member for Ceredigion, because we have all in our time been in a position when we have believed passionately in something. For all I know—I do not know him particularly well—when the hon. Gentleman came into politics the one thing that he wanted to do was introduce and take through the House a Bill that would bring about a reduction in road traffic. I may think that that is unrealistic, but that objective may have mattered to him passionately.
As a result, the hon. Gentleman drafts the Bill. He starts the process with which we are all familiar when we initiate private Bills. He needs to know, of course, whether he will receive Government support, and finds that he will not. However, I have a rather high regard for the Under-Secretary. She has dealt with a number of my constituency cases extremely briskly instead of merely shuffling trays around. I have high hopes of her, in due course, when it comes to the Kingskerswell bypass. That means that I shall restrain myself and not go through in any detail—others may not have the same restraint—the hon. Lady's position on those matters before she became a Minister and her present position. However, I am not sure that the facts have changed. Perhaps it is simply that the style of motor transport has changed.
It is quite significant that there was an exchange of correspondence between the hon. Member for Ceredigion and the Minister which was referred to in a Press Association news bulletin. I assume that the reference is correct. The hon. Gentleman apparently sent a letter to the Minister, to which she replied as follows:
The Government will not oppose a Second Reading, subject to your agreeing in the debate to address a number of detailed reservations.
There is something about the way that civil servants help to draft ministerial responses that I always love, even though they helped me to do it.
What were the reservations? We shall hear about them in due course. What was the effect of that process? It was that the hon. Gentleman, if he wished to get his Bill through the House, would have to propose some pretty radical amendments to it. The issue arose in the context of a meeting that the Minister was invited to attend in her constituency. Anyone who has been a Minister will savour her response. When writing to explain why she would not attend the meeting organised by Friends of the Earth—this is marvellous—she said:
I regret that I am not able to accept your invitation.
It gets better when she writes:
I am sorry that this will be a disappointing reply but I understand that the Bill will not be published before the beginning of January and until I know the provisions of the Bill, it is simply not possible for me to explain what my position on the Bill will be.
We are all politicians, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You used to be before you moved to a higher plane. What politician is not prepared to express a view on a Bill that he or she has never seen? We do it all the time. For us lowly people on the Back Benches, that is all we can do. However, the Minister is in a better position than that. She can write not only her own Bills but private Members' Bills. Although the hon. Lady may not have known the contents of the Bill, she could have written, "I'll tell you what, I am like other politicians in that I never pass judgment on a Bill that I have not seen, but I will"—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is humorously discussing interesting matters. I am not so interested in what the Minister could do as in what the hon. Gentleman can do, and that is to keep within the terms of a Third Reading debate. What is done is done, and what is won is won. The Bill's Third Reading is before us. What the Minister did or failed to do has nothing to do with me.

Mr. Nicholls: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You enable me to move straight into the Bill and to say what the Minister did. It is obvious that she will not oppose the Bill today in the light of what happened at an earlier stage.
Perhaps the best bit of the Bill reads:
Be it enacted by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty".
That is rather a nice phrase. The reader then thinks that he will move on to something rather better. There is the obligation in the Bill that is to be found in clause 2, which reads:
It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State, subject to subsection (2) and with the aim of reducing the adverse environmental
and all that. The aim behind the Bill is set out. That is marvellous and that is the bit that the hon. Member for Ceredigion wanted. However, subsection (2) states that the
Secretary of State is not obliged to comply with the requirements of subsection (1)".
The first subsection imposes an obligation and the second one states that the Secretary of State does not have to comply with it.
We have heard talk—perhaps we may hear more today—about Henry VIII clauses. Subsection (2) is more a Ghengis Khan clause. It reads:
The Secretary of State is not obliged to comply with the requirement of subsection (1) if he considers that other targets, or other measures"—

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I think that my hon. Friend has erred. Is it not the Ethelred the Unready clause?

Mr. Nicholls: It may be. I prefer Ghengis Khan because of the brutal nature of the clause. I suspect that Ethelred the Unready was a deeply misunderstood social democrat of his day. The clause is much worse than my right hon. and learned Friend suggests. It states that the Secretary of State does not have to do anything if he considers that other targets or other measures are more appropriate—

Mr. Robathan: Machiavellian.

Mr. Nicholls: It is not even Machiavellian. It is absolutely Ghengis Khan. The clause does not state that


The Secretary of State's judgment has to be submitted to Parliament. Instead, it provides the merest fig leaf. Only a moron in a hurry would think that the fig leaf will work. The clause tells us that, if the Secretary of State decides to take action,
he shall publish a report explaining his reasoning and including an assessment of the impact of the other targets or other measures on road traffic reduction.
That is it.
The Bill continues and mentions one or two other things. It comes to a brief end after about another half a page. That is it: there is no obligation on the Minister to comply with the requirements of the Bill. To describe the Bill as flaccid would suggest a degree of rigidity that would be completely inappropriate. The one tiny and pathetic subsection that might conceivably do some good—it certainly could not do any harm—is neutered in the next subsection by allowing all discretion to rest with the Minister.
I came along to the House today notwithstanding the fact that my constituents' concerns are not reflected in the Bill. I have been in politics long enough to know that, if I write to people to the effect, "This Bill is not what you think it is and therefore it should be opposed," they will not understand.
The Bill can be summed up in one quaint old phrase: like the chambermaid's baby, it is only a small one. The Bill will not do very much harm. I suppose the worst feature is the number of trees that have been slaughtered to produce the wood pulp to enable it, and other documentation, to be printed. It will not do much harm, but let nobody think that it will do the slightest bit of good.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I shall speak briefly and a little more enthusiastically about the Bill than my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls). I think that, strangely enough, there is in politics a place for exhortation, and that what the Bill does is exhort. I see my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) shaking his head. I think that there is some value in the exhortation is that is contained in the Bill and I therefore give it a gentle welcome.
I am pleased to see the qualifications in clause 2(3) that require the Secretary of State, before targets are published for road traffic reduction, to have regard to matters such as "congestion",
danger to other road users",
"social impacts", "effects on air quality" and "effects on health". Those considerations are of crucial importance to roads issues in my constituency.
The Minister knows that I have spent a great deal of time banging on about the Great Barford bypass and the need for the Bedford western relief road, which are highly relevant to the Bill. The position would be eased if there were a 10 per cent. reduction in traffic, but even if the Bill

achieved that objective, there would still be a need for the bypasses for exactly the reasons that the Minister is rightly enjoined to consider "congestion",
danger to other road users
and "social impacts". The exhortation to consider the road traffic position in the round and in the context of an integrated transport policy, which is a grand way of saying that people should be able to find a bus or a train to get on after parking their cars, is valuable.

Mr. Dafis: Although I do not want to assist in spinning the debate out, I am grateful for the right hon. and learned Gentleman's gentle support for the Bill, but he should not get away with claiming that it is only about exhortation. Clause 2(1) states:

It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State",
which is a little more than exhortation. The duty can be suspended only in certain circumstances—I have mentioned clause 2(2)—but the fundamental is that a requirement would be placed on the Secretary of State, so the Bill is not only about exhortation.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I do not want to take away the hon. Gentleman's achievement, but he undervalues exhortation, which is a crucial part of politics. It is an aspect of leadership and gives people direction. He is perhaps closer to my point than he thinks. What would it be the Secretary of State's duty to do? There is a duty
to set and publish in a report targets for road traffic reduction in England. Wales and Scotland.
The duty is not to reduce road traffic, but to set targets. People aim to achieve targets, and when we exhort people to do something, we suggest a direction in which they should go.

Mr. Forth: My right hon. and learned Friend rightly says that there is an important role in politics for exhortation and that politicians should give a lead where they think it appropriate. My difference with him is that I have grave doubts about whether legislation and law making form an appropriate vehicle through which to exhort or to give leadership. I am asking for his advice and will obviously defer to his judgment ultimately, but should not the role of the law be much more specific and much more firmly based for it to be effective? I have difficulty with legislating to exhort, not with the concept of exhortation.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I understand, and to a considerable extent sympathise with, my right hon. Friend's point, but, in a democratic country, messages need to be put across and we need to set a sense of direction. We should not be so grand and so restrictive about the purposes of legislation that we do not occasionally use it to exhort and to push Governments of all flavours in a particular direction, especially through private Members' Bills.
When we were in power, we were willing to be pushed on many of the issues to which the Bill rightly refers. We were making progress with, for example, the practical impacts in Bedfordshire of trying to improve the quality of people's lives and the safety of people in villages such as Great Barford by getting on with building bypasses. We were making big efforts, under the private finance initiative and through the introduction of private money for road building, in the large new housing estates that


will develop to the west of Bedford to achieve a Bedford western relief road. If the Bill will help with such matters—I hope that the Minister will say that it will—it will have a valuable effect in its exhortationary function.

Mr. Eric Forth: It pains me to disagree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), but the pain is offset by the pleasure of admitting that my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) said most of what I had intended to say. However, that will not stop me saying a little more to give him my complete support.
In making my notes about the Bill and when listening to the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis), I picked out the headings that my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge pursued, but I shall put a slightly different emphasis on them. A number of my reservations about the Bill are similar to his. One is that it is driven by a single-interest group. Such Bills are becoming more common. There is a burgeoning—some say that that is healthy in a democracy—of well-funded and well-organised interest groups, but they do not always represent a majority or a widely-based view.
I intervened on my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire to press him on how widespread the response to the Bill has been, generated as it has been by a single-interest group. Politicians should, as I did, measure the response by counting the number of spontaneous letters that they received from the electorate on the matter before the Bill arrived on the scene and before the single-interest group got to work. That is the acid test of how much the public are concerned.
I cannot speak for my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge, but over the past two or three weeks there has been a well organised phone-in campaign in my constituency about the Bill and, of late, about one or two others. I pay tribute to the extent to which Friends of the Earth has organised the telephone campaign by its supporters in my constituency. I have enjoyed some interesting conversations with my constituents on the matter, and I shall mention them later because they reflect my hon. Friend's remarks.
To date, 25 or 30 constituents have been in contact with me. No doubt Friends of the Earth has more paid-up members in Bromley and Chislehurst, but only those people contacted me to say how much they supported the Bill.

Mr. Hilton Dawson: How much correspondence does the right hon. Gentleman receive from constituents who are not members of pressure groups complaining about the impact of traffic congestion, noise, smell, vibration and pollution on their lives?

Mr. Forth: At a rough estimate—I should not like the hon. Gentleman to hold me to it too strictly—about one letter a month. My constituency is a busy and, happily, relatively affluent outer-London suburb that enjoys a lot of traffic. I should have thought that I would have received more of a response if the concern to which hon. Members have referred existed. To date, I have not had such a spontaneous response.
It is claimed that the genesis of such Bills reflects widespread public support, but I challenge that argument because I do not believe that they do. Politicians may be subjected to pressure through their postbag or through telephone calls, but it is our responsibility to make a judgment about the extent to which that reflects widespread genuine public concern.

Mr. Robathan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that orchestrated letter-writing or telephone campaigns can lead one to adopt a more sceptical position? Although 100 constituents out of 70,000 may have written, we should consider the other side of the issue more closely.

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Any group that puts pressure on Members of Parliament must make a careful judgment about the nature of that pressure and its likely effect.
In my discussions with constituents who made telephone calls at the prompting of the interest group behind the Bill, I took the trouble, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge, to ask—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot allow the right hon. Gentleman to dwell on his constituency contacts or on a campaign, because, as I have said, we are past that stage. The House has decided on the Bill's earlier stages, and we are now on Third Reading.

Mr. Forth: That allows me to go into the point that I was making. I asked my constituents how they thought that the Bill would lead to the reduction in traffic on which they were so keen. That was not an unreasonable question. I said, "You have taken the trouble to call me to say how much you support the Bill's aims as set out in its short title." It was not unreasonable to ask them, "What sort of reductions do you envisage as a result of the Bill?" We often got into interesting conversations about whether the traffic that is generated by parents who are taking their children to school would be reduced. My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) mentioned that. Some people said yes, but others were not so keen.
We are familiar with the list of categories such as families going to the supermarket to do their weekly shopping, people visiting relatives and elderly people who feel more secure in their cars than they do on public transport or in walking. Many kinds of traffic arise from family and personal circumstances and one must ask, "Which type of journey do we envisage being reduced perhaps not as a result of the Bill, but to reach the targets that the Government will eventually set?"
My hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge spoke about aspirations, a word that I have in my notes. My hon. Friend got there before me. The problem with Bills such as this one is that it is easy for them to result in aspirations or to exhort through legislation. However, if we have no clear idea of how to achieve results, we are being irresponsible. It is the duty of those who support such legislation to have a clear idea, even if it is not expressed, of exactly what traffic they envisage will be reduced, the effect on people's lives, and the cost implications. I hope that the Minister will deal with those matters in detail.

Mr. Dafis: The report by John Whitelegg goes through the categories of traffic and describes by how much


specific types can be reduced and by what means. The right hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that the Bill is driven by a single interest group. It is supported by a broad range of organisations and many local authorities. A MORI poll that was published just before Second Reading showed that 79 per cent. of people wanted road traffic to be reduced. The Bill responds to a popular demand.

Mr. Forth: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has made that point because I am prepared to do a deal with him. If he is prepared to proceed with legislation on the basis of opinion polls and support, I shall trade my support for the Bill for his support for the restoration of capital punishment. As he knows, time and again people give their overwhelming support to proposals for the restoration of capital punishment. I am prepared to discuss with the hon. Gentleman the interesting notion of legislating by opinion poll, but, if we take that route, the hon. Gentleman must not be too selective.
I shall not pursue that line, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because you might not approve of it. Legislating by such means is rather dubious. To say that many organisations want such measures is not conclusive or definitive. We have a responsibility to think about what real people in their ordinary lives think. Organisations have agendas, to which they are legitimately entitled.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The Bill places on the Minister responsibilities and duties to set a strategy and road traffic reduction targets. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be fine if people chose to travel fewer miles because that made their lives better? Is it by choice that we have the lowest homicide rate in the European Union?

Mr. Forth: Indeed. If we could find a way to combine freedom of choice with the Bill's aims, that would be ideal, but that is not the way that the case has been put. We are told that the Government will make a necessarily arbitrary decision about how much they think road traffic should be reduced and that, by some mysterious process which we do not yet fully understand, although the hon. Member for Ceredigion has an expert in whom he has touching faith, all the problems will be solved.
In his speech, to which we all listened carefully, the hon. Member for Ceredigion did not give an exhaustive list. That is a pity, because such a list would have been relevant. However, he mentioned parking, bus promotion, the use of bicycles, and traffic management. I agree that it is perfectly reasonable to charge for parking facilities. I belong to the school of thought that prefers the pricing approach. As my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West said, that would enable people to choose, which is what we expect them to do over cigarettes and car use. The Government continually increase the price of petrol.
People are given the message that the Government of the day think that consumers should base their judgments and priorities on cost. I have no difficulty with that concept, but it is not the same as bus promotion, which sounds good when it is said quickly, but I suspect means little.

Mr. Paterson: On the issue of pricing, does my hon. Friend agree that sticking excess duty on fuel is a crude,

blunderbuss approach and not a reflection of the market? There are other ways to get closer to people's travel choices, but the blanket imposition of fuel duty hits everybody.

Mr. Forth: In my haste to be brief, I am in danger of glossing over such matters. My hon. Friend rightly stops me on the point that, although I support a pricing approach, I agree that the universal imposition of tax on products such as petrol ignores the complexity of the market and of the structure of transport with which the Bill aspires to deal. For example, there are differences between my hon. Friend's constituency and mine. Mine is urban or suburban, while his is much more rural, and that gives rise to different traffic reduction requirements. In the context of the Bill's aspirations, how far do we think that the measures that are likely to flow from it, if any, will make the distinction that my hon. Friend reasonably seeks? Will there be a much more sophisticated approach, using the pricing mechanism, to acknowledge the difference in the type of traffic geographically and by social groups? I shall not labour the point, but I agree with my hon. Friend, and I am grateful to him for his intervention.
Bus promotion encounters the great difficulty that arises when people look to public transport, broadly and loosely defined, as the answer to most of the problems. The difference in nature between journeys that are undertaken in cars and those that people are able to undertake by public transport is so complete that the public transport solution probably has only limited applicability to reducing overall traffic.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: When my right hon. Friend intervened during my speech, he rightly said that we in the Conservative party can think about more than one topic. Perhaps he would focus on clause 2(2), which states that the Secretary of State is not obliged to comply with certain requirements if he
considers that other targets, or other measures, are more appropriate for the purpose of reducing the adverse impacts of road traffic".
Does that not encourage the Minister to do what I am sure my right hon. Friend would wish to be done when we wend our way through Chislehurst, and I would wish to be done when I see the increasing congestion and accidents in Great Barford and to the west of Bedford, and to build decent roads when they are needed as part of the response to the Bill?

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. That is an interesting point. As he is well aware, one school of thought is that, the more roads we build, the more traffic we encourage, and I am intrigued that, in expressing his broad support for the Bill, he should almost in the same breath make a plea for a bypass. People whose views on this matter are much more sophisticated than mine argue that the M25 is a classic example of something that was designed to ease traffic and has done the opposite. We have to resolve that question clearly before we go much further.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion, the Bill's promoter, cited buses as one of the things that his pet expert, in whom he has obviously touching faith, had suggested to make progress and to solve the problem. No matter how many buses we produce and how sophisticated and pollution-free they may be, I cannot for the life of me see


how they are going to replace the vast majority of those journeys that are undertaken by the citizenry in their cars for personal, family or private purposes.
Let us look more specifically at that, and take the vexed question of children's journeys to school. One of the arguments of the hon. Member for Ceredigion was that the Bill would save lives. He then mentioned children's lives. I wondered about that when he said it because it occurred to me that there is at least a possibility—I shall put it no higher than that—that, if we were to lure or force children out of their parents' cars and have them take the bus or walk, as schoolchildren did when someone of my generation was at school, or even my own children did, there is at least a possibility that the accident rate among school-age children might increase, not decrease.

Mr. Robathan: My right hon. Friend makes an entirely fair point, because, if all children were to walk or bicycle, particularly, to school, the chances are that there would be greater casualties. However, he must go one step further and ask: whose fault would that be? Would it be the fault of the child walking or bicycling, or of the motorist going too fast and driving too badly?

Mr. Forth: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot go as wide as the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is going. There are items in the Bill, and it is up to him to speak to those and not go beyond the scope of the Bill.

Mr. Forth: I am, as ever, grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was perhaps making the mistake of picking up the points that the hon. Member for Ceredigion had made in his speech. I thought that that was what debate was supposed to be about, but perhaps the modernisation of the House has hit that on the head, along with so many other excellent traditions.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that, if the right hon. Gentleman were the promoter of the Bill, he would be given some leeway, but we have gone beyond that and I am going to be very firm. It is nothing to do with the modernisation of the House. It is to do with the rules of the House, which are that, on Third Reading, comments must relate to what we have before us—and that is the Bill.

Mr. Forth: God forbid that I should ever be the promoter of a Bill, but perhaps my time will come. Then other colleagues will be able to have much fun at my expense, but I hope that that is a long way off.
I do not want to prolong the debate unnecessarily, but I did want to put the few views that I have expressed on the record, if only so that, if any more of my constituents telephone me, I can send them the extract from Hansard to show them what I have to say, rather than take the trouble of writing lengthy letters of explanation. As colleagues will be aware, Hansard is extremely useful in that regard. More important, I wanted the hon. Member for Ceredigion to understand the extent of my reservations about the Bill, although I am sure that it will proceed in a gentle and orderly fashion to its next stage in the legislative process.
I have no desire necessarily to stop that process, but we should all be aware that there is a danger that the expectations that are raised by such Bills and by those who promote them are in themselves dangerous. There is always a probability of disillusionment with the legislative process if we raise hopes too much with such Bills and then find that we are unable to deliver. That, I hope, will not be the case, although I fear that, with this Bill, it is extremely probable.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on Third Reading, to welcome the Bill and to welcome the endeavours of the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis) in bringing it before the House. I do not share the scepticism of some of my hon. Friends—not because I do not appreciate their view that there is a measure of exhortation, as opposed to substance, in the Bill, but because I believe that it is going in the right direction. Let me explain why.
First, although there will be general approval throughout the House, and, indeed, among large percentages of people in opinion polls, for the concept that road traffic should be reduced, the reality is very different, as I know from my constituency. My constituency has three motorways going through it and faces the threat of motorway widening and of motorway service areas being built, usually in deciduous woodland that will be gutted or blown like an egg so that no more than the fringes around it are preserved.
In my constituency, there is much opposition to road traffic, and much concern about the way in which it reduces the quality of life. However, I also have to accept the fact that I represent a constituency—indeed, I have my own car on the edge of the constituency—where car ownership is the highest in the UK. When representative polling samples are taken in the constituency and people are asked their primary local concern, they answer, "Free car parking places." I must accept that, in those circumstances, my constituents are sending a double message.

Mr. Howard Flight: Double standards.

Mr. Grieve: No, not double standards. My constituents genuinely wish their quality of life to improve—in relation to traffic, exhaust emissions and the like—but, at the same time, they share the problem faced by people throughout this country: the motor car remains the only means by which they can get from the place where they start their journey to the place where they intend to finish it. Most of the alternatives start from a place where they do not intend to start and finish at a place where they do not intend to finish. Until that issue is dealt with, or until there is a change in culture, we shall not make progress.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion and I—I am sorry that he has just left the Chamber, but he has already sat through quite a lot of peroration from hon. Members, so I will forgive him that—have the privilege and pleasure of serving on the Environmental Audit Committee. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman would agree with me about what has emerged during our deliberations over the months. Leaving aside my constituency, there is an enormous gulf between the revivalist aspirations


represented by Ministers coming before the Committee and the environmental improvements that they wish to achieve, and the reality; and structures that may enable us to deal with that reality have not been set up.
Although it has been said that the Bill has been gutted by Government intervention, it appears that two key matters remain in the Bill. The first is the duty on the Secretary of State to publish and report road traffic reduction targets, and the second is that, even if he can wriggle off that hook so that he does not have to comply with the requirements, he will have to explain why, and publish that explanation.
Because of that, I—and, I should like to think, the hon. Member for Ceredigion—have a fertile area for further questioning on the Select Committee. We have a number of opportunities to question the revivalist approach—more characteristic of a Welsh chapel than anything else—that appears to animate some Ministers as they explain to us the wonderful new world that we are about to enter, and to introduce a little more hard reality. Even if the Bill achieves that purpose alone, it will still be worth while.
Road traffic reduction is a highly desirable goal, but it is also extremely difficult to achieve. One should not hazard oneself to prophesy, but when the reports are published in the next few years I should be surprised to find anything other than clear evidence that road traffic reduction targets are not being met and that road traffic is increasing. That is the grim reality.

Mr. Green: What is the use of targets if there are no penalties for failing to meet them? If the targets have to be met by the Secretary of State, it is inconceivable that any Government would allow legislation that would impose meaningful penalties on him. If there are no penalties, how useful are the targets?

Mr. Grieve: I accept that targets of themselves will not necessarily lead to a beneficial result. However, they will at least oblige the Secretary of State to set out what he believes to be achievable and, subsequently, to come before the House or the Select Committee to explain why he has not been able to meet them. He will then have to face the reality of why the targets are difficult to meet. To be more optimistic, the Secretary of State could come before the House or the Committee to say how, by some great and wonderful miracle, the targets have been achieved or are near to being achieved. That is desirable—

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Surely the issue is not whether the Secretary of State personally suffers some penalty if the targets are not met, but whether we can achieve an overall general improvement in the quality of life. Tens of thousands of people make a certain decision on 300-odd days of the year. Surely we should be trying to achieve a framework that will spot the things that matter, and not concentrate on the unimportant.
The Bill raises several issues on which the Minister could help to focus attention. No one expects the Minister to issue regulations—which could not be done under this Bill anyway—saying, "Thou shalt", or "Thou shalt not."

Mr. Grieve: I agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, I was about to make precisely those points. He has outlined

exactly what the Bill will achieve and the benefit that will flow from it. The fact that the Bill's aim is modest does not detract from the fact that it is an essential building block in promoting the beneficial results that we want to achieve.
We have a long haul ahead of us. As I said earlier, Ministers come to the House and express themselves in revivalist terms in general, but never provide details of substance. It is time that we and they woke up to the fact that the issues of environmental improvement generally and road traffic reduction in particular are difficult. The Bill takes a small step in that direction. It will allow for greater scrutiny, which in turn will allow for greater public debate. That will allow for the changes in culture that we hope will enable people to take a different view of the use of their cars and become more inventive and creative about the use of alternatives.
On that basis, I am happy to support the Bill, and join my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Ceredigion in commending it to the House.

Mr. Damian Green: I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the House, for being today's miscreant in the mobile phone stakes. I would not like to be the hon. Member who, during Welsh questions on Monday, fled before Madam Speaker could identify him as that day's miscreant. It behoves those of us who pass laws to own up when we break the laws of the House.
The range of views expressed on the Bill this morning have been interesting—from a gentle welcome to severe reservations. That is a sensible range of responses. I assure the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis) that I am at the gentle welcome end of the spectrum. To be honest, I do not think that the Bill will do a tremendous amount of good in achieving road traffic reductions, but it will do no harm. Indeed, some small amount of good may come from raising the issue in the public consciousness and putting a measure on the statute book that imposes continuous obligations on successive Secretaries of State to think about the issue.
The Bill has been improved as it has passed through its various stages, and may be improved yet further. Some of the improvements have been due to some of the Minister's more spectacular retreats. I look forward, with more than my usual eager anticipation, to her speech at the end of the debate. I am sure that she has prepared an enormous number of supportive remarks about the importance of road traffic reduction. It will be entertaining to see how she squares that with the fact that the Government have pulled many of the teeth out of the Bill, both during its various stages and following negotiations with the hon. Member for Ceredigion. In fact, I support the Minister, as I think that she has done the right thing.
The Bill imposes a responsibility on the Secretary of State. The House might find it useful to consider how, in practice, national targets would be implemented. As several hon. Members have said, there is a similar measure already on the statute book. It imposes similar responsibilities on local authorities for assessment and consideration of traffic issues. Obviously, local authorities can fulfil their responsibilities in a detailed way, while being sensitive to local conditions. This Bill is a much more ambitious attempt at traffic reduction because it sets national targets for England, Scotland and Wales. The danger is that they will be vacuous.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has already said that we should draw a distinction between traffic problems in different parts of the country. What are perceived to be the main traffic problems in urban areas—usually congestion and pollution—are entirely different from those in rural areas, which often boil down to heavy lorries on unsuitable country roads and a lack of adequate public transport.
My constituency is more or less 50:50 urban and rural, so my constituents, depending on where they live, suffer from all those problems. The danger of national targets is that, unless the Secretary of State wills it, he will not be able to fine-tune the targets. I hope that the Minister can assure us that the targets set out in clause 2 will not be imposed flatly, but that the Secretary of State will provide a more sophisticated response.
Given the right hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for regionalism, which I do not share, I have no doubt that he will be tempted to provide regional targets. Much more important is that the overall national targets should be broken down by categories of specific problems. Within the national targets, the Secretary of State should recognise the necessity for targets to increase public transport in rural areas and to keep lorries and other heavy goods vehicles on appropriate roads and off inappropriate ones, but also the necessity for an entirely different set of targets to reduce urban congestion and consequent pollution. Without that fine-tuning of the national targets, I am very much afraid that the net effect of the Bill will be small.

Mr. Paterson: It is all very well setting targets, but how does my hon. Friend suggest the Minister introduces practical measures to achieve them?

Mr. Green: That is a very important point. In many ways, I would prefer the national targets set out in the Bill to be put into effect at local level, instead of the decision being taken by Ministers or officials in Whitehall. Each locality will know what measures and targets are appropriate for its area and will be able to make a much more practical and sensitive response to the needs of local people.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: I thank my hon. Friend for his customary courtesy in giving way. My local authority wrote to me asking me to support the Bill because, certainly at that time, it believed that the Bill would give it the power to set its own targets. Unfortunately, that is no longer in the Bill before us.

Mr. Green: I am interested to hear what my hon. Friend says, because legislation already exists that enables local authorities to do just that. The Bill refers specifically to national targets. I am interested to learn that my hon. Friend's local authority wants to set local targets, and, in view of what we are learning from this morning's debate, perhaps he will be able to guide his authority in an appropriate direction, for which I know it will be extremely grateful.
I was talking about the interface between national and local targets. One hopes that the Bill has some practical effect, not least because, as hon. Members have already observed, our postbags have been bulging with letters on this issue—although I have to say that I have received more mail on other subjects. It is certainly true that there is a widespread expectation that, once the Bill has been

debated, and, I hope, passed, something will happen and there will be a reduction in road traffic. However, the mechanism for getting from here to there is not apparent unless the Secretary of State takes up the responsibilities given to him in clause 2(1) but neatly taken from him in clause 2(2).
When the fine tuning to which I referred takes place, it is important that it is appropriate. My local authority in Ashford is going through a phase of closing roads. It regards that as an appropriate way to improve the flow of traffic through the town. Many local businesses are extremely anxious and oppose individual road closures, and are probably right to do so. Local authorities that take a fairly broad-brush approach may well get it wrong and cause economic damage.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion pointed out that there are economic aspects to the traffic problem, so some economic analysis is needed. The Bill mentions the economic damage caused by excessive traffic, but the House must recognise that economic damage can also be caused by inappropriate traffic reduction measures. Once the Bill is passed, one hopes that those who are required to implement it will strike the proper balance.
As I said, my constituency is half rural. The traffic changes that rural dwellers are seeking are not the same as those sought by urban dwellers. One of the weaker parts of the Bill is its reference to the provision of adequate taxi services in rural and non-rural areas. I am sure it is clear to the Bill's promoter that those who are most concerned about the provision of transport in rural areas are those least likely to be regular users of taxis. Taxis in rural areas tend to be extremely expensive. Constituents who complain to me about public transport in their villages tend to be either young people or the elderly and the retired who cannot afford regular journeys by taxi, so more thought is needed on that issue.
In the end, cost will be the key. If there is to be a serious attempt to reduce the use of private cars in rural areas through the increased provision of public transport, I have to tell the Minister in all conscience that the —50 million nationally that the Government provided in the Budget is only a drop in the ocean. For the Minister's sake, I hope that the Government do not talk that up too much as a great initiative because in a year or two people will be saying that it has made no impact in their areas.
I hope that the Bill will focus the Secretary of State's mind on the transport issues that people regard as important. In my constituency, the fact that the M20 is inappropriately surfaced, making it one of the noisiest motorways in the country as it passes through an urban area, is regarded as important. If we are seen to be tackling transport issues in a way that opinion polls show most people approve of, but there are no practical improvements on the ground, we are in danger of bringing the House into disrepute. People will say that we are just talking and having no practical effect on their lives. That would be disappointing, because the hon. Member for Ceredigion has seized the public mood and moved the debate forward a few inches. It is incumbent on all of us to ensure that we do not encourage impractical and inappropriate measures, but that we do not ignore the public mood.
One of my colleagues said that the best he could say about the Bill was that it would not do much harm. Judging from my short time in the House, it seems that,


if we are passing a Bill that does not do much harm, it will be one of the better Bills that we shall be passing this Session.
I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Howard Flight: I support the Bill's Third Reading and echo what many colleagues have said. Nothing in the Bill appears to be tyrannous. It certainly has the right intentions and reflects what our citizens know must happen in the next 20 years, which is that at least the rate of growth in traffic has to slow down.
I do not for one moment expect the targets that have been mentioned to be achieved. In my constituency, I have not been lobbied in support the Bill, but I have had many letters from pensioners in rural areas complaining about the increase in the price of petrol and wondering how they are going to cope with that.
I hope that the Bill will tease out precisely what the Government's policy on targeting is. I do not wish to put at risk the Arundel bypass scheme, which will be a very necessary relief to congestion on the A27. I thought that the Minister was in favour of a specific 10 per cent. national target, but the fact that the Government have taken the teeth out of the Bill suggests that they are not. I do not know whether they are looking to a targeting system that is aggregated from local targets, or whether they are abandoning the entire concept, which in any case has many flaws. I hope that the Minister will comment on that in her reply.
I am disappointed that the Bill does not focus more on ways of relieving traffic growth and congestion; I had hoped it would widen the territory on which the Minister was required to report annually. I should like to concentrate specifically on fiscal incentives.
One of the largest employers in my constituency is a mushroom grower that employs 500 people, mostly ladies who work different shifts. The company used to run a bus that took them to and from work. When the Inland Revenue told the company that the bus was a taxable benefit in kind, that records would have to be kept and all sorts of other nasty things, the company said, "Forget it," with the result that there are now another 300 cars on the road.
I wrote to the previous Government and, shortly after having the privilege of being elected to represent Arundel and South Downs, I also wrote to the Deputy Prime Minister, but I regret that I received no reply. Fiscal support, not discouragement, to companies, to bus people into work, particularly in rural areas, could be an important factor in reducing traffic growth and congestion.
Reference has been made to children being driven to school. I would comment selfishly that, as I drive to and from the House, I notice the dramatic difference in London traffic in the school holidays and in term time. A fiscal incentive for schools to provide more buses could be extremely positive.

Mr. Swayne: It is not always a matter of transport not being provided. I recently visited a sixth form college and was aghast to discover that a large proportion of the pupils drove to school, despite adequate transport provision. It was a matter of choice.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We appear to be having what is almost a Second Reading debate. On Third Reading we must discuss what is in the Bill and not our experiences in the constituencies we represent.

Mr. Flight: I was alluding to the matters on which the Bill requires the Minister to report, Mr. Deputy Speaker. They probably include the causes of congestion and increase in traffic. Having visited the United States a great deal—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let me help the hon. Gentleman. At this stage we should not worry about the causes, which should have been addressed on Second Reading and in Committee. Now, on Third Reading, we must consider only the Bill that is before us.

Mr. Flight: I hope that the Government will take the reporting requirements in the Bill to cover a survey of the causes of congestion and rising traffic usage. I hope that such a survey will also include analogies with the way in which other countries are tackling the problems addressed in the Bill.
I welcome the sentiments in the Bill. It is unlikely that it will do much to reduce congestion and road traffic, as that will depend on how the Government use it. I should like to know what their position is on targeting and how they propose to use the reporting requirements. I am nervous that the Bill will become a propaganda sound bite, used to give the impression that the Government are doing something to reduce road traffic when, in reality, virtually nothing is being done. The Government's draft guidance on traffic reduction under the 1997 Act is rather weaker than the promises by John Watts when he was Transport Minister in a previous Government.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: First, let me declare a minor interest. It is not one for which I receive money; indeed, I pay for it. I have been a member of Friends of the Earth for some years, although I do not always agree with that organisation—I often disagree with organisations that I support, and that included the previous Conservative Government.
I welcome the Bill—I am a junior sponsor of it—as an important step in the right direction. We heard that it wasted a lot of paper, but it is a very small Bill. Sadly, I do not think that it is printed on recycled paper. It is also very cheap at —1.10, if anyone wishes to buy it. It represents a step towards reducing traffic.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis), who represents a particularly beautiful part of the country that I hope will remain part of the United Kingdom for the foreseeable future. He has stuck tenaciously to the issue, and the Bill is now progressing to Third Reading.
We all know that the Bill is not perfect, but we have to start somewhere. We have to consider how to reduce road traffic. My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) made some excellent points, and I shall reiterate two or three of them.
Cycling to school was commonplace when many of us were young. I cycled or walked to school most of the time. It is an obvious way of reducing what accounts for


25 per cent. of traffic in some places during school terms. I hope that the Minister will be active in encouraging road traffic reduction by those means.
Old photographs from the 1930s and post-war show that a huge number of people cycled to work. Now it seems infra dig. We cannot compel people to ride bicycles, but we should encourage them to do so. People drive to the shops when it might be just as easy to walk. I shall not dwell long on my constituency, where there is a large shopping centre at Fosse park. At Christmas time people have to park nearly half a mile away and walk to the shops because of the congestion.
There are many ways of reducing traffic. My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) mentioned the fiscal angle. He is absolutely right. We have to encourage a change of behaviour, attitude and culture, and the Bill takes us one step towards that. We all want to reduce congestion, emissions, noise and the incidence of asthma. We want to stop new roads being built through attractive countryside. That is self-evident. The Government and all hon. Members can play a part in influencing and managing the choices that people make.

Mr. Paterson: As a member of Friends of the Earth, can my hon. Friend enlighten us as to what practical measures Friends of the Earth would take to achieve those desirable targets?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to remind us what Friends of the Earth would do. He must address the Bill.

Mr. Robathan: Not only do I bow to your wisdom, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I am not a walking encyclopaedia of the policies that Friends of the Earth would have us pursue. I have already mentioned two or three that I know it would support, such as encouraging people to cycle to work and school.
The Government have a role in influencing and promoting choices. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), I am against compelling or restricting people or legislating unnecessarily, but the Bill encourages us in the right direction.
In defence of the previous Government, may I say that the former Secretary of State for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), is most committed to cycling, and was chairman of the all-party cycling group. He is also more committed than most hon. Members to reducing road traffic. It was unnecessary for the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) to attack the previous Government, because, in the previous Parliament, I attacked them for displaying much the same attitude as is now displayed by the Labour Government. A former Minister, Steve Norris, became a convert to, and an active promoter of, the cycling strategy, as I am sure the Minister for Transport in London would admit.
The present Government's reaction to the Bill, which is the most pertinent point in this debate, has been to remove from the face of the Bill the road traffic reduction targets, which are what the Bill was all about. Its title is the Road Traffic Reduction (National Targets) Bill, yet it

contains no targets, which I find rather distressing. I should like genuine targets to be put into the Bill, and I hope that the Minister will set such targets at some stage.
Road traffic reduction is a question of influencing people and setting an example. My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire bicycles, as do I. I tackled the previous Government on this question as I do the present Government: perhaps Ministers should set an example by not being ferried around in large Jaguars, and by making greater use of public transport, their own feet and bicycles.
How many of the hon. Members who support the Bill regularly use public transport around London? How many use buses, trains, bicycles or their feet? It distresses me to see the large number of people who come not more than a mile and a half to this place by motor car every day. I shall not say how I got here today, but it involved no more than two wheels and a bit of puffing.

Mr. Flight: Was it by train?

Mr. Robathan: No, not a train—a bicycle.
One might say that, to a certain extent, the Bill is all about good intentions, but it is not merely about platitudes. It is about influencing people and setting a good example. It is also about individual action and choice, because individuals must be allowed to determine how they get to their destination. I confess that, when I am not in the Chamber on a Friday, I drive out of London to my constituency. The Government and Parliament have their role in influencing behaviour, and that requires us all—Members of Parliament and those outside as well—to put our actions where our mouth is. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) said, it is no good saying that we want to see road traffic reduction and then demanding extra car parking space. People must make the connection and be encouraged to use their feet.
If targets were good enough for Kyoto, as the Minister said on Second Reading, it is strange that we should not have targets in this Bill. However, the targets have been removed, and although the Minister has said that she will be setting targets later, traffic will not reduced and the targets will not be met with fine words, good intentions, platitudes or, indeed, well-meaning legislation. Traffic will be reduced by the action of us all, both individually and collectively, but it is Government action to which we look forward.
When the Secretary of State comes to setting targets and publishing a report, we shall examine how the Government have acted; if the Secretary of State falls back on clause 2(2) and takes advantage of the fact that he or she will not be
obliged to comply with the requirements",
we shall take up that issue as well.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: Some weeks ago, when I rose to speak in a Third Reading debate, I was swiftly silenced by the Chair because I dwelt on what I thought should be in that Bill, what it ought to do and what it did not do, rather than concentrating on what it did do. This morning, I shall put great effort into remaining within order, but the fact that this Bill does nothing at all presents me with a difficulty in speaking about what it does.


When the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis) introduced the Bill, I agreed with his words in every respect. He said that the Bill was underlined by three questions, the first of which was, why should we reduce traffic? He gave the reasons of health, environmental impact and economic benefit, which are laid out in the Bill and which will flow from the goal to which the Bill aspires. In that respect, I entirely support the Bill.
On the other two questions—by how much and how we might reduce traffic—the Bill is silent. That was my difficulty when several constituents asked me to sign the original early-day motion. I entirely supported the thrust and the goal of the early-day motion, but felt that it was somewhat irresponsible simply to state a target and say that it was desirable without giving any consideration to how that target was to be achieved.
The Bill in its original form would have been a far stronger measure than it has turned out to be. It began its life as the Road Traffic Reduction (United Kingdom Targets) Bill, but the targets have been removed. It is politics of the worst sort when a problem is perceived and examined but, instead of dealing with a solution, we end up merely posturing. It is no fault of the hon. Member for Ceredigion, but the Bill as it is now is posturing.
The reason why we have ended up with a targets Bill that has no targets is the attitude displayed by Ministers. Much posturing went on before the general election, and all sorts of early-day motions and petitions were signed and undertakings given about level of traffic and the reduction required; but, once in government, Labour has ensured that, for the Bill to receive a Third Reading, the targets had to be removed. It is monstrous, and Ministers have behaved absolutely unforgivably. This country faces an enormous problem of traffic increase and we sought to set targets for a reduction in traffic, but we now have a Bill from which those targets have been removed. That is most unsatisfactory.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: I regret to say that I have listened to the debate with increasing incredulity. Legislation is a serious matter and we should not legislate unless there is a clear reason for doing so and the legislation will actually achieve something. In their speeches, my hon. Friends have gently welcomed the Bill and then pointed out that it will achieve very little.
I, like other hon. Members, have received representations from constituents as the Bill has metamorphosed from its original form to that which we are debating this morning. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), I have no quibble with what Ministers have had to do to the Bill in order to be able to agree to it. I recognise the difficulty of setting down national targets in legislation and of achieving those targets and thereby achieving the overall policy objective, which is to improve the quality of life of us all.
There are endless means at the Government's disposal to achieve that objective. One way is to increase fuel duties, but we can perceive all sorts of difficulties with that, not the least of which is rural concerns not being identical with urban concerns. Therefore, as a method of achieving a national target, increasing fuel duties cannot work.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) said, local councils face difficulties in achieving their objectives—when they close roads, problems are caused for local traders.
The issues are difficult, and the Minister has my sympathy in trying to meet the targets that the Government properly signed up to in Kyoto. I understand why they thought it necessary to gut the Bill, but, having gutted it, why do we not get rid of it? The Bill represents the minimum necessary to give a nod to what all hon. Members would consider appropriate objectives.
It is a perfectly legitimate criticism to say that the House passes far too much legislation. Under any deregulation initiative worth the name, the Bill would fail. It is a matter for the Government whether they want their poor, beleaguered civil servants to produce yet another glossy brochure and more briefing materials, to explain to the public and the Environmental Audit Committee why the targets cannot be set. The only contribution that the Bill would make to road traffic reduction would be negative—a marginal increase in paper production would be needed to produce all the glossy brochures, which would have to be distributed to all the interested parties.
I disagree with hon. Members who have said that we can exert influence only through legislation—we do not need legislation to exhort and to influence people. It is a shame that we have allowed the Bill to get so far, as it is not well able to achieve the objectives that we all support. It is up to the Government if they want to take on more onerous responsibilities, but under a deregulation initiative in years to come, the Bill will not be thought to have been worth the trouble.

Mr. Owen Paterson: I heartily congratulate the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis) on the fact that the Bill has come so far. One has to admire someone with strong beliefs, who is elected to Parliament and then brings a private Member's Bill to Third Reading—he must be feeling pretty tense now, as we have been speaking for more than two hours.
I am frustrated, however, as I feel that the Bill represents a missed opportunity. I do not think that any hon. Member believes that traffic, of itself, is good. The Bill outlines the negative aspects of traffic, and the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) mentioned asthma. I used to be asthmatic and I have two children who are asthmatic, although my family are lucky enough to have been brought up in the countryside, where there are few emissions.
The Bill completely ignores the benefits that the motorised vehicle has brought to our civilisation. All hon. Members have had clothes brought to the House in a motorised vehicle—all the food that we have eaten here today was brought on a truck—and drugs to improve the health of children with asthma travel to chemists' shops on lorries. The Bill will do nothing to change the fact that some traffic is essential.
The Bill confuses excess traffic with congestion. I give two examples from my constituency, where there are severe traffic problems that the Bill will do nothing to help. The Minister was good enough to listen to what I said in an Adjournment debate on the A5, which is not only a national trunk road, but part of the European network—it is critical in moving traffic round Europe. In


a road that runs from Felixstowe to Holyhead, 32 miles are single-carriage—those stretches have hardly changed since they were built by Thomas Telford.
The Bill will do nothing to alter the awful situation on that road, where accidents occur every week. As the Minister knows, 25 people have been killed in the past five years, and two weeks ago, two French lorries ran into each other. The Bill may lead the Government down the wrong route of believing that all road building is evil. I believe that a new road must be built in my constituency, as the traffic that is essential to the economy of my area is increasing.
I give another example—in this case, the problem is congestion rather than traffic. The village of Hodnet has been waiting for a bypass for 40 years—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Once again, the hon. Gentleman is raising constituency matters, which is understandable, as I know that he wants to draw those problems to the attention of the House. However, he must talk about the Bill. He could have raised those matters on Second Reading or in Committee, but he must not mention them on Third Reading.

Mr. Paterson: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for tripping me up. I wanted to draw the attention of the House to the fact that, although the Bill is well meaning, national targets will not bring practical benefits to my constituency. Much of our debate has been abstract, whereas I have tried to be concrete and practical.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) said—I am delighted that he has resumed his seat, as I can now compliment him—national targets would not work, and most traffic decisions should be taken by local authorities, which understand local problems. In the Soviet Union, national targets were set on the kaleidoscopic activities of the Soviet economy, but they failed completely—it was a total disaster. I cannot see how a Minister in London can set a national target, as there is so much diversity in local economies. I agree with my hon. Friend that targets should be set locally, if they are to be set at all.
We have not sufficiently discussed how the targets can be achieved. In my interventions, I have tried to draw the attention of the House to pricing, as I am convinced that we can reduce traffic only by ensuring that the car or lorry driver thinks before he sticks his key in the ignition, and asks himself whether he needs to make that marginal journey.
I do not believe that the Government thoroughly understand how a market economy works. They have misunderstood how to use the pricing mechanism, and have imposed a vicious increase in fuel duties, which has a blunderbuss effect.

Mr. Dafis: I should point out that the road fuel escalator was devised by the previous Government; the current Government have increased it by 1 per cent.

Mr. Paterson: I am fully aware of that. I do not have to endorse everything that the previous Government did, as I was not a Member of Parliament at the time—I was in business, travelling around the world picking up practical experience, which I am now trying to bring to the House.

Mr. Graham Allen (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury): Tell us about the common agricultural policy.

Mr. Paterson: I should be delighted to tell the hon. Gentleman about the CAP another time, as I have very strong views about that, too. The question of fuel duties is fundamental—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not like interrupting any hon. Member, but I must do so today. Unless I am reading a different Bill, I cannot see that it mentions fuel duties. The hon. Gentleman could have raised the matter in Committee, but not on Third Reading—we are rather restricted today.

Mr. Paterson: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for putting me on the right road again.
I was arguing that national targets will not work. I am a confirmed believer in the market, which already works in our transport system by rationing. Traffic will not be reduced unless the marginal cost of the marginal journey hurts the transport consumer. If one wanted to go to from Shropshire to London, it should be unthinkable to take a car through the centre of Birmingham on a motorway. There should be some price mechanism, some barriers to doing so. I have seen such measures working in Oslo, in Bergen and in Singapore. Even the Mersey tunnel has an electronically run toll system; the technology is there.
I would criticise the previous Government for not introducing road pricing. I regret the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley), who said that studies had shown that road pricing would not work, is no longer in the Chamber. I should have liked to hear why road pricing would not work, because I believe that it is the only practical system that will achieve the Bill's laudable aims. I should be most grateful if the Minister would inform us whether the Government have any plans to trial road pricing schemes.

Mr. David Maclean: I wish to say a few words of support for the Bill. It has had a fair outing this morning, but that is perfectly legitimate, in that many colleagues from different parts of the country have had worries about the Bill, ever since we debated earlier measures in the previous Parliament.
The Government have obviously had concerns, and have insisted on a dilution of the Bill, because they no longer wish to be tied to set targets of the type that they were faithfully promising their electors before the general election. That is why the Bill contains the get-out in clause 2(2) that, if the Secretary of State does not want to set a target, he or she must publish a report setting out alternative means. I shall comment on that later.
Unlike some of my colleagues, perhaps, I have no objection to national targets being set. If one is to achieve anything, one must start with a national target. At Rio, we started with international targets—world targets—and Kyoto has continued the work. Those of us who were there first, saving the world, agreed with that, but unless one starts with national targets, it will be impossible to achieve change in an individual parish in Scotland, England or Wales. Therefore, I have no qualms about the Government going down the route of setting a national target.


However, I wish that the Bill had taken into account the fact that targets that may be necessary to reduce congestion in London or other cities, or targets to reduce traffic in London or other cities where there is poor air quality, should be more stringent than those for rural areas. I hope that we shall receive the Government's assurance that they will take such considerations into account when setting a national target. Incidentally, many of us who do not live in London permanently, but are visitors here during the week, suspect that the smog in London is caused, not by motor cars, but by very dirty buses; one is never allowed to point out that diesel engines can do as much as petrol engines to cause poor air quality.
There are especially severe problems of congestion and poor air quality—and, no doubt, social impacts of motoring—in some cities and conurbations. However, I wish that the Bill contained a requirement to the effect that, when setting targets to tackle those pressing problems, and to reduce the ill effects on the health of people in large conurbations, where there may be a perception of too much traffic, at the wrong time of day, and not spread over a long enough period—altering which could deal with much of the problem—the Government must not penalise the many rural motorists who do not suffer congestion or air quality problems.
No doubt vehicle emissions in rural areas contribute to overall CO2 levels and to greenhouse gas, so we should have controls to ensure that the total amount of CO2 produced by vehicles nationally—whether they are in the rural lanes of Shropshire or Cumbria or in the busy streets of London—does not exceed the targets that the Government have adopted.
I believe that the Government have been rash in trying to adopt in Britain stricter targets than those that have been adopted in the rest of the world. The message that came through to me loud and clear when I was negotiating at Rio was that, however much Britain and western Europe may show that they are the good guys in cutting CO2 the Americans would be slightly behind us and China would not do a thing about it.
China, with its sulphurous coal and some of the dirtiest power stations in the world, made it very clear five years ago—I believe that its attitude hardly changed at Kyoto—that, as a developing economy, it regarded global CO2 targets and measures to control its emissions, not as something good to save the world, but as a nasty western capitalist plot to hold back its development.

Mr. Forth: In that context, can my right hon. Friend confirm what I have been led to believe: that domestic heating can give rise to almost as much atmospheric pollution as motor vehicles, if not more? Is he not surprised, therefore, that the Government reduced tax on domestic heating fuels at the same time as increasing taxes on motor vehicle fuels? How does my right hon. Friend square that?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not want the right hon. Gentleman to square that, because it is nothing to do with the Bill.

Mr. Maclean: Those in another place might insert a good amendment on that. I shall not go down the route of considering domestic heating in this country, but I shall mention domestic heating in another country.
In India, the country with the second largest population, the huge amount of pollution is caused not by motor vehicles but by fires from heating appliances for the population of 800 million. An astronomical amount of fuel is burned in domestic heating stoves. India does have dirty, polluting cars in cities, but I suspect that the amount of fuel used in fuel-burning stoves is one of the biggest contributors to pollution there. I know that the Foreign Office was engaged in measures to plant a huge number of eucalyptus forests to supply India with more fuel for fires, adding to the problem.
I shall not stray further into that subject. I am merely arguing that, when we are setting national targets to tackle problems in this country, we must never lose sight of the fact that, however much we control our emissions of noxious gases, of CO2 and other gases from road vehicles—and there are merits in controlling them, to control health problems as well as the total amount of CO2—our contribution is but a small pin-prick among the CO2 producers in the world. That is not to say that we should not do our bit.

Mr. Green: Has my right hon. Friend considered that the get-out clause in the Bill, which allows the Secretary of State not to impose the national targets, might be appropriately used if this country were doing all that it could to reduce noxious CO2 emissions, but, as other countries were deliberately not doing so, our efforts here were having no significant impact on global warming?

Mr. Maclean: That would be the only legitimate use of the get-out clause. It was naive and foolish of the Government to come back from Kyoto saying that they had signed up to larger targets than anyone else. Because of the work of the former Secretary of State for the Environment, my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), we are not one of the worst producers of carbon dioxide or sulphur emissions. That is not to say that we should rest up and do nothing more, but we are among the good guys at the top of the league table. If we are to set a good example—more so than other countries—we could end up unfairly impinging on rural constituents.
It is easy to set targets. In the past 18 months, we have had three huge rises in petrol prices, which are impinging disproportionately and unfairly on rural constituents. They have not done much good in terms of dealing with the problem of carbon dioxide emissions. Nor have they solved the air quality problems in London.
The Government will be urban-centred in their approach, and will develop measures that will force people out of their motor cars and on to public transport in the major cities. That can be done, to a certain extent. However, there is no magical integrated transport policy that this or any other Government can think of which can force people in rural counties back on to buses or trains—they just do not exist in large parts of the country.
The Government say that we should go back to the magical days of 1978 before the Tories liberalised the buses. Possibly, there were more buses at that time. We had one on a Saturday going to Penrith—now, we might not have that one bus on a Saturday. However, there was no magical time when buses were running in rural areas every half hour. Most rural areas, if they were lucky, had one bus a week. It is pie in the sky to believe that a grant


of £50 million, spread around the rural areas of England, will give us an alternative transport system that will enable people to give up their cars.
I give up my car most of the week—once I drive the 15 miles to Penrith, I get on a train. I should happily do that for ever more and use Branson's service on the west coast main line. However, there is no alternative to my making that car journey, and there is no alternative for thousands of my constituents.

Mr. Forth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, since the late 1970s, the large increase in car ownership—thanks to the general affluence that our country enjoyed under the previous Conservative Government—has meant that more cars are available to families? Therefore, the challenge is that much greater, in attempting to shift traffic back to buses or any other means of transport. Going back to what happened in terms of bus availability in the 1970s would not be sufficient because, happily, we have more cars, as people have chosen them to travel in.

Mr. Maclean: There has been a steady increase in car ownership since the second world war—it is probably an exponential curve. One might conclude that that is a bad thing, but I would not. It has liberated many of my rural constituents who never had an adequate bus service, even immediately after the war. I meet some wonderful old constituents who reminisce about travelling by bus to Penrith on market day. When I ask why they travelled only on market day, they reply that they had buses only on a Tuesday. Even before the war, there was only one bus, on a Tuesday. They remember times during the war when special service buses were laid on, and they could hitch a lift on them. That was not just in Cumbria—most other large rural counties were the same.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman may not have been in the Chamber when I said that making lengthy references to one's constituency is perhaps good for another time, but not for a Third Reading debate.

Mr. Maclean: I accept your chiding, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was attempting to draw attention to the difficulties and dangers of setting broad-brush national targets that do not take into account the needs of millions of constituents in rural areas who do not suffer from the problems listed in subsection (3).
I have no difficulty with the Government setting national targets, provided that they give us some guidance. I hope that the Minister will tell us clearly that when the Government set their national targets, they will take into account the needs of constituents who do not live in the cities—London, Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester and Newcastle—in which an integrated transport policy could work.
In those cities, many hundreds of thousands of people could be persuaded to use public transport systems—if they were boosted by more investment—as an alternative. There is no alternative, in large parts of the rest of the country, for the majority of the British people. There is no alternative, even if the Government put up the price of petrol to £10 or £15 a gallon. They will only bring about more poverty in rural areas and they will not be able to force people on to a public transport system that does not exist.
I want to hear from the Minister today how she proposes to set those national targets. I want to hear in what circumstances the Government will use the opt-out in clause 2(2). The opt-out is there for one clear reason: to deal with all the pledges that were made by the Minister and others who signed up to 10 per cent. targets in I do not know how many early-day motions. For the past three years, various early-day motions were signed by the Minister and others, pledging themselves to a 10 per cent. target on road traffic reduction.
Several Ministers in the present Government said that they believed in a 10 per cent. road traffic reduction. We have the names of all the Ministers serving in the present Government who signed early-day motions calling for 10 per cent. targets, right up to 1 May.
I know how our able civil service works when faced with a problem. If the Bill presented by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis) is accepted, it will cause embarrassment to 20 Ministers who signed up to 10 per cent. targets. It is not in the nature of civil servants to cause embarrassment to Ministers, whom they must serve as efficiently as they can. Therefore, there is an excellent get-out. If, for whatever good reason, the Minister does not think that a set target under clause 2(1) is appropriate, the Minister may set aside that target, provided that there is a report to Parliament explaining that there are better alternative means.
The phraseology is good. I remember similar suggestions being made to me, sitting around a Government table looking for ways of getting out of a problem. Subsection (2) is a cop-out, to get the Minister and her colleagues out of an awful pickle.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: 1 understand why my right hon. Friend says that subsection (2) is a cop-out, but does he agree that even from a cop-out, good can come? Subsection (2) focuses the mind of the Minister statutorily on the need to consider what environmental damage road traffic is doing—for example, in rural areas such as he and I represent—and the need for bypasses and health and safety measures in small villages that are snarled up by road traffic. That is a beneficial side-effect, which we hope the Minister will grasp with all her usual enthusiasm.

Mr. Maclean: My right hon. and learned Friend is right. I am merely drawing attention to the Government's hypocrisy in running with the cop-out clause. They are anxious to get themselves off the hook of their firm pledge to many organisations such as Friends of the Earth, and the early-day motions that they signed, pledging themselves to a 10 per cent. road traffic reduction target and no cop-out.
Before the election, it was suggested that the Secretary of State could ignore the 10 per cent. target and produce a report setting out the reasons—good stuff, but that was not acceptable. The then Opposition would have considered that a fudge. If the previous Government had produced a measure such as clause 2(2), the hon. Lady and all her hon. Friends would have accused us of not taking road traffic reduction seriously. They would have said that they had a 10 per cent. target, and that the measure was just a fudge to get the Tory Government off the hook.
Now the Government are using the fudge and trying to get themselves off the hook. However, my right hon. and learned Friend is right: good can come of it. We know that


the Government will not set a target. If they had wanted to set a target of 10 per cent., or a 7, 5 or 2 per cent. target, they would have done so. They would be in the House today boasting about it. We would hear that they had fulfilled yet another pre-election pledge from Hampstead high street.
We shall not get that from the Government. Instead, they will dress up subsection (2) and the progress that they will attempt to make in that regard, and they will present that as meeting their targets. When they do so, I hope that they will examine the needs of rural areas, and consider the contribution that heating may make, the contribution that extra insulation may make, and the excellent bodies that we set up in government, such as the Home Energy Conservation Trust and various other—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is straying from the Bill again.

Mr. Maclean: I shall return to it straight away, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that the Minister will be honest about how she believes clause 2(2) will work. We need to know in what circumstances the Government will be tempted to set a target of 2, 5 or 10 per cent., as Labour pledged to do before the election. In what circumstances will the Government tell the House and the hon. Member for Ceredigion, the promoter of the Bill, "We're sorry, we accept the Bill and it will pass, but we shall use the powers in clause 2(2): we shall publish a report and set out the reasons why we are not running with the target"?
The House deserves to know today the Government's intentions on target setting. I suspect that we shall never see a firm road traffic reduction target. If such a national target is announced, I am afraid that it will be a broad-brush target that will inflict massive damage on those who do not have access to the transport systems that exist in only a few major cities in England and in Glasgow, which has an excellent system.
Does the Minister intend to set a firm target for road traffic reduction? If not, what criteria will the Government use to let themselves off the hook and go for the get-out in clause 2(2)? Will the Minister give a commitment that the Government will not set targets that disadvantage millions of people in counties that do not have access to the road system—not just a few Tory supporters in a few Tory seats, but many of those in rural areas whom Labour Members now boast that they represent? Those people should not suffer as a result of the Government's desire to show that they are better at clobbering road traffic than other Governments in Europe.

Mr. Christopher Chope: This has been an excellent debate, in which 12 of my right hon. and hon. Friends have participated to great effect. The promoter of the Bill, the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis), also spoke, and the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) made a short intervention. I think it is significant that we have not heard anything from Labour Members so far—we obviously eagerly anticipate the Minister's speech. It is a very different scenario from that on Second Reading, when the Chamber was bulging with aspirants from the Government Benches seeking to

show their support for the Bill. The fact that they are not here today may suggest that they are beginning to realise that the Government are engaged in a cynical exercise regarding this Bill.
The Bill is significantly different from the legislation that was before us on Second Reading on 31 January. I sympathise with the hon. Member for Ceredigion about the Government's systematic emasculation of his Bill during its passage through the House. He has assured me that he and the Bill's sponsors are not content with the legislation in its present form, but believe that this Bill is better than none at all, and would prefer to see it on the statute book. However, if they are lucky in the ballot and can persuade an hon. Member to take up the issue, they have promised to return in a subsequent session—in the same way that they returned in this session because they were dissatisfied with progress in the previous one—in an attempt to achieve their objective.
The Bill's title has changed since Second Reading: it now refers to "National Targets" rather than "United Kingdom Targets". The substance has also changed significantly. Clause 2—and, to a large extent, clause 1—has effectively been rewritten. The time scales in the Bill on Second Reading have been removed, and I submit that the Government have acted very cynically. As several of my right hon. and hon. Friends have said, this is nothing but declaratory legislation: it gives the Government the power to do that which it could do already if it had the political will.
If one seeks an analogy, one need look no further than what happened with road casualty reduction targets. We did not require legislation or a private Members' Bill to establish those targets. That was achieved to great effect by the previous Government when my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) was a Transport Minister. Those targets have been very influential. They were realistic and they have been achieved. They set a framework within which local authorities, the Highways Agency and others concerned about road safety could operate.
The Government could do the same thing with traffic if they had the will to do so. The Bill panders to popular concern about congestion and pollution but does nothing to solve the problem. Indeed, the Bill is about good images rather than reality. The Government are obsessed with image. If one wants further evidence of that, one need go no further than today's front page story of The Times, which gives an interesting backcloth to today's debate, because it refers to an important meeting in Chester today of European Environment and Transport Ministers, convened by the Deputy Prime Minister acting in his capacity as Chairman of the Transport Council during our presidency of the European Union.
One might have thought that a Government committed to integrated transport and to reducing road traffic in absolute terms would have taken the opportunity to ensure that all the delegates travelled to the conference by public transport, but we learn that the delegates—and, because it is a European event, their partners—and officials will arrive at Manchester airport, where they will be met by 60 cars to take them to Chester to discuss why other people should travel by public transport.
Apparently, the arrangements for the conference were discussed by Whitehall officials, who examined train services between the airport and Chester and suggested


that the condition of Crewe station, where the overseas visitors would need to change, gave a poor image of Britain's railway network. That is what this is all about£image. The Bill is about mood music; somehow the Government are committed to reducing the adverse impact of traffic and are in favour of traffic reduction.
There was an opportunity for the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who is Chairman of the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Transport Sub-Committee, and a distinguished Member of the House, to meet some of these dignitaries from Europe in her constituency. She would have been able to draw their attention to the substantial new investment in Crewe railway station following the privatisation of Railtrack. She has been denied that opportunity.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying from the contents of the Bill. He must speak to the Bill.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: rose—

Mr. Chope: I give way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Atkinson: Was it not a pity that a special train was not selected? They could have hired one, covered in Walt Disney cartoon characters, from north London sidings to take the delegates to Chester.

Mr. Chope: My hon. Friend makes an excellent suggestion, but it may be too humorous to find favour with the Government.
This is not an isolated incident. The Government talk about a rationale of having an integrated transport policy and an inclusive society, but nothing is less inclusive and more exclusive than people travelling in limousines from Manchester airport to Chester.

Mr. Robathan: I specifically refer to the Bill. Surely we must all play our part if we wish to see road traffic reduced, and that particularly involves the example that might be given by our Government and the Governments of the European Union. Frankly, does not my hon. Friend think—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already stated that the point has been made. The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) must move on. The behaviour of the Government is not in question. We are considering the Bill.

Mr. Chope: I accept that absolutely. In answer to my hon. Friend's intervention, after the local government conference in Scarborough this year, which was organised by the Labour party, the Deputy Prime Minister left from Scarborough station, in front of the cameras, and then stopped at the next station to get into his car—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not want to have to be on my feet again. It is not good for the House. Hon. Members must abide by the rules that they have made. I do not want to hear about the behaviour of any Minister. I want to hear about the Bill.

Mr. Chope: I accept that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Although the Secretary of State who will be given

absolute discretion under the terms of the Bill is the Deputy Prime Minister, to whom I was referring, I accept your ruling.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I have been wondering whether my hon. Friend is doing justice to the Bill. If he focuses on clause 2(2), he will find that the Secretary of State, if he does not want to have targets for reduction, must consider other methods. For example, if there were a situation in which people would travel to a particular destination in a large number of cars, black or otherwise, there would be an obligation under clause 2(2), would there not, for the Secretary of State to consider whether two buses would do the trick instead and create less environmental pollution?

Mr. Chope: My right hon. and learned Friend is right. The Deputy Prime Minister could go further than that. Much of the discussion in Committee and that which has taken place behind the Bill, as it were, has reflected the idea that people do not need to travel as much as they do. What is to stop European Environment and Transport Ministers meeting by video conference link, thereby obviating the need for them to travel by aeroplane or car?

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) about the Secretary of State's discretion is an important one. It will be within the recollection of the House that, when Transport Ministers came to this country 10 or 11 years ago, the provisions of the proposed clause 2(2) were fulfilled and those Ministers were taken round the country, including Scotland, by train.

Mr. Chope: It is not a surprise to me to hear that that is what happened under the previous Government.
As my right hon. and hon. Friends have said, the Bill does not require any targets to be set. Only if targets are set is there any requirement to report progress in relation to them. The hon. Member for Ceredigion now agrees with me that there is a large loophole in the Bill, bearing in mind what he believed the Bill would achieve given the drafting of clause 2(2). I am grateful for his response, following my intervention in his opening speech on Third Reading, that he will return to that issue in the other place. It seems that he will try to get some of his supporters to return to the issue.
The hon. Gentleman takes the view that the Government are of a generous spirit and are committed to the targets. That is where I disagree with him. If the Government are committed to targets, why have they insisted that there should be no unequivocal requirement to set targets in the Bill? Why has clause 2 been emasculated by the Government if in reality they are committed to the targets? Perhaps the realities are beginning to dawn.
There were the easy words and the easy signature that came from the Minister in Hampstead high street on 8 February 1997, when she signed up to a 10 per cent. reduction in traffic by the year 2010 compared with the level of traffic in 1990. When she came into office, she must have realised that that target would be difficult to achieve without imposing the most amazing restrictions on the travelling public.
In 1990, 250 billion vehicle miles were being travelled in this country. A 10 per cent. reduction would have reduced that figure to 225 billion miles. We know, on the


Government's 1997 traffic forecasts for the year 2010, that it is said that 351 billion traffic miles will be travelled. Even in 1996, the figure was 10 per cent. higher than it had been in 1990, with 275 billion vehicle miles being travelled.
The Government have wriggled away from signing up to the target that so many Labour Members put their names to in the relevant early-day motion. The Government realise that there is a large credibility gap between what the target implies and what can be achieved. I pay tribute to the Government, because there is and always has been a link between economic growth and traffic growth, as there is linkage between air traffic growth and economic growth. The Government's figures in the departmental report that was published before Easter show a 3 per cent. increase in road traffic in 1997, which means that an extra 9 billion vehicle miles were travelled compared with 1996.
We should compare that with what the Deputy Prime Minister said when launching the integrated transport consultation:
We have to face up to the challenge of using the car less.
On 6 June, he said to The Guardian:
I will have failed if in five years time there are not many more people using public transport and far fewer journeys by car. It's a tall order but I urge you to hold me to it.
On the basis of his progress in the first year, he must achieve a reduction of more than 1 per cent. in absolute terms in each of the remaining years of this Parliament to be able to avoid resigning, which he, as an honourable gentleman, would do if he failed to fulfil that commitment.
Perhaps reality is dawning on the Government. In Committee, why did the Minister refuse to accept the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn)?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not going to allow discussion of what was or was not accepted in Committee. We are having a Third Reading debate, and we shall speak only about the Bill.

Mr. Chope: I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
It is significant that the hon. Member for Islington, North is not in the Chamber, because he was concerned about this issue. He wanted to set a much less ambitious but specific target that would have been implemented on 1 May 1997 and would have ended at the end of this Parliament. The Government rejected that suggestion. The hon. Member for Ceredigion thinks that the Government must have had good reason for that because they are committed to setting targets, but it is evidence that they are unwilling to introduce meaningful targets against which performance could be measured in the life of this Parliament.
My hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) was absolutely right to say that the Bill would give the Government a cover story. A number of my right hon. and hon. Friends think that the Bill would do no harm, but I am concerned that it would provide cover for a significant reduction in investment in roads infrastructure. My hon. Friends have referred to road

schemes and bypasses in their constituencies that would reduce traffic congestion, improve air quality in the towns and villages that were bypassed and thereby improve people's health, and contribute positively to road safety. Clause 2(3) mentions all those issues.
The Government have been cutting back significantly on investment in transport infrastructure. The latest Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions spending plans propose in the current year expenditure of £230 million less on national roads than was spent during the last year of the Conservative Government, which is a 15 per cent. cut. There has been a dramatic cut in expenditure on roads of more than local importance, which are often built around towns and villages where bypasses are most necessary.
This coming year, £376 million will be spent, compared with £558 million in the last year of the Conservative Government. That is a cut of no less than 33 per cent., and the report shows that only one new bypass will be started this year. That compares with the Conservative Government's record of starting many bypasses every year because of the tremendous demand and need for them.

Mr. Dawson: Would the hon. Gentleman care to consider Lancaster? It had a Conservative Member for 27 years and the Conservative Government were in office for 18 years and had no—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Christchurch will not consider Lancaster.

Mr. Chope: The previous Government completed 400 road schemes, and 160 major bypasses, during their term in office. I am sorry that they did not get around to completing all those that the hon. Gentleman thinks are needed in his constituency. They will not be completed by a Government who start only one bypass a year.
The Government are significantly cutting investment in transport infrastructure. It is estimated that the investment by local authorities in the coming year will be only £1.76 billion. The amounts are small compared with the £30 billion that the Government raised in revenue from road users this year. That makes me suspicious about whether the Government have it in their heart to take the measures necessary to reduce traffic congestion and improve the environment in many of our towns and villages.
The Government say that road traffic must be reduced, but they do not have a similar policy on air traffic, which is forecast to grow at about 5 to 6 per cent. a year between 1996 and 2015, with a consequent increase in use of fuel. The Government have no targets for reducing that, and when they were asked whether they intended to introduce a target, they said that they were developing a balanced package of measures to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, and expected all sectors to play their part.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: Perhaps my hon. Friend would focus on clause 2(1), which states:
It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State, subject to subsection (2) and with the aim of reducing the adverse environmental, social and economic impacts of road traffic, to set and publish … targets".
The Secretary of State has to consider the adverse impact of road traffic on towns and villages that so desperately need bypasses which, as my hon. Friend says, the Government are lamentably failing to provide?

Mr. Chope: I would not quarrel with my right hon. and learned Friend, because he knows the law and can interpret legislation, but clause 2(2) enables the Secretary of State to avoid complying with the requirements of subsection (1), which means that it will be possible for him to ignore the need for more bypasses.
The Minister for Transport in London has responded to a series of Adjournment debates in which hon. Members, including Labour Members, have sought investment in new bypasses. In none of her responses was there any sign that she was sympathetic to the building of bypasses as a means of reducing the adverse environmental impact of road traffic. She continues to speak about the need to reduce absolute levels of road traffic.
The problem is compounded by the point made by the hon. Member for Ceredigion, who said that we could not reduce the adverse impact of road traffic without reducing road traffic itself. Many Conservative Members think that we can reduce the its adverse impact by having road safety measures. Despite massive increases in road traffic, there are fewer deaths and serious injuries on the roads than when the statistics were first collected. In the one month of December 1939, no fewer than 1,000 people were killed on the roads. We can make improvements in safety without reducing overall road traffic. We can make improvements in emissions by using more environmentally friendly engines. The air quality targets published by the previous Government have shown that that can be achieved.
Noise is one of the environmental impacts that causes great concern to my constituents, and those of many others. Investment in the highways can significantly reduce the environmental impact of noise. If we invested more money in porous asphalt and other road surfaces, noise impact would be reduced. The key to reducing congestion is to remove bottlenecks, build bypasses and increase capacity. All those require investment and it is the investment side of the equation that the Government are not prepared to provide. That is why I come to this issue with quite a lot of scepticism and cynicism.
That cynicism has been increased significantly by the way in which the Government seem to be avoiding producing the working papers in support of "National Road Traffic Forecasts (Great Britain) 1997", which was published in October. Paragraph 2 of the introduction states:
There are six working papers which will shortly become available.
They had not become available by the middle of March, so I asked a parliamentary question about what had happened to them.
The Minister for Transport in London responded:
I understand that four of the six working papers will be available by the end of March, and that the remaining two will be available at end April".—[Official Report, 19 March 1998; Vol. 308, c. 698.]
In fact, one was available by the end of March and two were delivered two days ago. As we speak, three are still outstanding, including—interestingly, hon. Members may think—the one about forecasting uncertainty. It was promised originally that that would be one of the first papers to be delivered, but, for some reason, it has still not been released. If the Government are not able even to comply with their own targets for producing working papers in support of their documentation, how can we

have any confidence that they will be able to produce meaningful targets for reducing the adverse impact of road traffic?
I am concerned that those documents have not yet been produced. Having looked at the ones that have been produced, one can see the chasm between the assumptions that lie behind the 1997 forecasts and the Government's language in addressing the issue of traffic and growth. Those forecasts show that, where gross domestic product increases, traffic will increase. They show that there will be a significant increase in population and households, and that household location will shift increasingly to the countryside. They show that that there will be an increase in fuel efficiency, but discount some of the Government's assumptions about the impact of land use planning.
Therefore, the Bill is a cover. It cannot disguise the fact that the Government are anti-car, rather than pro-environment. They support massively higher taxes on motorists, but are against investing the extra resource in the transport infrastructure-in just this financial year, 1998-99, £1.7 billion extra will be raised in taxes on the motoring public, but only £175 million will be re-invested in public transport.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington referred to the £500 million which the Chancellor played up in his Budget speech and said that it was only £475 million. He should have gone on to say that it is not even £475 million in one year, which is what we were led to believe—the Red Book shows that the £475 million is to be spread over two or three years.
The Red Book also shows that, this year, despite raising £1.75 billion extra tax from motorists, only £175 million—£1 in every £10—will be invested in public transport, and almost all of that will be absorbed by London Underground. Indeed, a significant amount of the money allocated to London Underground is being paid out in compensation because of a personality clash between its chairman and the Deputy Prime Minister.
This is a relatively harmless Bill. Doctors have a succinct phrase for relatively harmless medicine—placebos. The Bill will make the voter feel better, but it will not achieve anything of substance. I applaud the way in which my right hon. and hon. Friends have seen the Bill for what it is. We look forward to the Minister's response.

The Minister for Transport in London (Ms Glenda Jackson): When the House last considered the Bill, the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) threatened me with a venomous campaign. If that threat was delivered today, it carried all the serpentine terror of attack by slow-worm. The hon. Gentleman was confused about the Bill's purpose. I was surprised that he should be critical of the changes made in Standing Committee; he clearly does not believe in a Committee stage for Bills.
The hon. Gentleman was critical of the Government for cutting the road building programme. As he knows, the Government made a clear commitment in our election manifesto that we would work within the financial limits set by the Conservative Government, who consistently cut the road building programme.
It was interesting to discover that the hon. Gentleman is pro roads and believes that road building is the way out of the desperate congestion that costs this country


£20 billion a year. We have yet to tot up the environmental costs of the failure of successive Conservative Administrations even to begin to define an integrated transport policy. We now clearly know where the shadow Minister and the Conservative party are coming from— they believe in building more roads, and they do not believe in a Committee stage for Bills. They appear to think that safety levels will be increased by building more roads and that we can clean up our air by building more roads.
The country has reason to be grateful, on this and other matters, to the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis), who has worked so closely with Friends of the Earth on the Bill. The country cannot continue as it is—there must be a reduction in road traffic. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his generous words about me and, in particular, about my officials. His speech highlighted the importance of the Bill.
The hon. Gentleman touched on the improvements that there will undoubtedly be in road safety, health, quality of life and the undoubted economic benefits that will flow from reducing what seems to be an almost unstoppable rise in the amount of traffic on our roads. It has been estimated that, without a drastic change in policies, at the present rate of increase there will be an additional 42 per cent. of vehicles on our roads by 2010. However, as the House knows, the Government have made it abundantly clear that we intend to change those policies. We are firmly committed to the creation of an integrated transport policy and have made it clear that our White Paper on that policy will be published shortly. We have also made it clear that we regard targets across a range of issues for which the Government are responsible as essential in delivering the policies we believe the people of this country wish us to pursue.
The issue of targets and the absence of a defined target in the Bill has been touched on by almost every hon. Member who has spoken this morning, but the hon. Member for Ceredigion made the point especially clearly. It is one thing to have a target; even more important is how one achieves it. He listed some of the measures available to local and central Government not only to achieve a reduction in the amount of traffic on our roads but to deliver the polices that we have pledged to deliver.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) gave the Bill a rather half-hearted welcome, but I know that, in the main, he supports the philosophy behind it. No one, either in or outside the House, doubts for a moment that any commitment made by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will be kept. I regret that I cannot remember which Opposition Member referred to the Deputy Prime Minister wriggling on a hook. The idea that my right hon. Friend would wriggle in any situation is absurd, and the idea that any Opposition Member could catch him on a hook is equally absurd.
The hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) made a particularly thoughtful, informed and constructive speech. He referred to the enormous increase in traffic caused by parents taking their children to school. I am sure that all hon. Members acknowledge that parents' concerns for their children—concerns that often necessitate their taking their children to school—are not

related exclusively to the fear of road traffic accidents. There is undoubtedly a "stranger danger" element to parents' concerns.
The problem caused by the school run was also touched on by the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), who is a sponsor of the Bill. I reassure him and the hon. Member for Worthing, West that it is Government policy to reduce parents' dependence on cars to take their children to school. That is why the Government are engaged in a cross-party exercise, which will inevitably produce policy, involving my Department, the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Employment. We hope not only to help local authorities but to define best practice on how to create safe routes so that there will be a reduction in the number of cars parked, often dangerously, outside school entrances. We want children to be given the freedom to walk and cycle, although we acknowledge that that can happen only when the routes are safe for them so to do.
The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) and the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) used this morning's debate to highlight particular constituency interests. Indeed, the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the necessity for a bypass for his constituency—not only in his speech but, if I have counted correctly, in at least four interventions on other hon. Members. He knows that the Government have been engaged in a thorough roads review since we took office. As I have said, our White Paper on integrated transport will be published shortly, and the roads review will follow soon after.

Sir Nicholas Lye11: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for dealing with the specific point that I raised. As I read it, the Bill encourages the Government to look at the environmental effects of bypasses in a constructive way rather than encouraging them not to build bypasses on the basis of a 1 per cent. overall reduction in road traffic. Does she agree with my interpretation?

Ms Jackson: The Government require no encouragement to examine the environmental aspects of all our policies. One of the first actions of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on taking office was to combine the Department of Transport and the Department of the Environment. We have a clear commitment that environmental concerns must inform all our policy decisions. As I have said in the House, the specific environmental benefits of bypasses will be judged case by case against the Government's five criteria for new road building. The environment is central to those criteria.
The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) disputed not the legality, but the necessity, of Bills that, as he put it, were supported by single-interest groups, however well financed and popular. I found that somewhat surprising given the right hon. Gentleman's commitment to his own single-interest group—the Conservative party. I can understand his chagrin, because that single-interest group is markedly unpopular and less than well-financed and its last organised campaign, culminating on 1 May last year, received the most decisive rejection.
The right hon. Gentleman said that he had received few if any letters from constituents on the issue. That is hardly surprising if he is not prepared to support their concerns.

Mr. Nicholls: I also heard the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst


(Mr. Forth). My recollection is that he was saying that, because he wanted to serve his constituents, he would take care to find out what they all thought about an issue and not simply accept the word of a single-issue group.

Ms Jackson: The hon. Gentleman's ears are as generous as he is himself. That is certainly not what I heard, but I would not argue with the hon. Gentleman's generous interpretation.
The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) gave the Bill a gentle welcome. He was particularly concerned that there should not be a broad-brush approach in defining targets for a reduction in road traffic numbers. The same concern was expressed by others, including the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) and the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) who put forward the undoubted case that there are variables across the United Kingdom, and specific conditions in rural areas.
There is no possibility that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would not take into account the major differences that often surprise me in a country as small as ours. The specific factors affecting particular areas will be considered in devising and defining the criteria that will have to be in place to produce a reduction in road traffic numbers in the best interests of all our citizens.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: There is a serious point to the Bill, which I am sure the Minister has studied carefully. Clause 2(3) is absolutely specific that, in considering matters relating to both clause 2(1) and 2(2),
the Secretary of State shall have regard to the adverse impacts of road traffic
in terms of
congestion … danger to other road users; and social impacts.
What I want to know is whether the Government will abide by the law that they are helping to pass when considering bypasses.

Ms Jackson: By my reckoning, the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire has now raised to six his total number of references to bypasses during this morning's debate.
The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) also welcomed the Bill. He referred to certain fiscal issues, which are not for me. He also mentioned the changes that have taken place with regard to an employer in his constituency. The Government are encouraged by the way in which increasing numbers of employers are examining, and often setting in place, green transport plans, whereby they offer their employees alternatives to overdependence on the private car. The Government—and I, as the green Minister for my own Department—have issued advice to all Departments on creating green transport plans throughout Government.
The hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) was highly critical of the Bill, saying that it was no more than posturing, but the form and content of his speech highlighted the truism that people who live in glass houses should never throw stones.
The hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) discounted the value of private Members' Bills in general, and said that he believed that there was no need for legislation in

this area. Had there not been legislation, it is highly unlikely that lives would have been saved by the introduction of, for example, seat belts in cars.

Mr. Blunt: That is obviously not what I said. Private Members' Bills are extremely valuable if they make an important contribution to the way in which we run our society, but this Bill will not change much at all. Does the Minister believe that the Bill will change the way in which she prepares and brings forward policies in her Department?

Ms Jackson: One of the reasons it was so easy for the hon. Member for Ceredigion and me to work well together is that so many of our policies enforce and enhance the central thrust of the Bill. No one had to change my mind about the value of the Bill.

Mr. Grieve: I had not intended to intervene, but just before my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) intervened, the Minister mentioned my constituency, but she did not go on to deal with the points that I raised in my speech. I wondered what she intended to say and whether she was going to say whether the Bill will help to hold the Government to account.

Ms Jackson: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. It was my understanding that, although he supported the Bill, he felt that Ministers needed to wake up to the reality of delivering targets and achieving traffic reductions. I do not believe that Ministers in the Labour Government need any waking up in that respect. As I said, one of the first actions of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was to combine the Departments of the Environment and of Transport. Issues relating to the environment, such as environmental protection and the environmental and economic need to create an integrated transport policy, are central the Government's policies. I trust that the hon. Gentleman will accept that as a sufficiently comprehensive answer at this stage.
The hon. Member for North Shropshire sees absolutely no value whatever in setting national targets. Not only we, but the previous Administration, set them for education, health and in an effort to reduce crime and to improve air quality. They form part of our commitments internationally and with our European partners.
The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border expressed concern about a broad-brush approach in defining targets. He spoke of his constituents' dependency on the car because public transport had failed to meet their needs. He said that there had been only one bus in his constituency even before the Conservative Government deregulated buses—which, I should add, put many rural inhabitants in a more benighted position.
There used to be more local shops and services in rural areas but, as a result of the previous Administration's misguided policies over the past 18 years, those services have been stripped from village centres. The necessity in rural areas to travel has increased year on year, but a concomitant public transport service has not been provided.

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: One of the finest manufacturers of buses is the Dennis company, which is based in my constituency. It attributes some of its tremendous success in recent years to the fact that the deregulation of the bus market opened up investment. Does the Minister acknowledge that market forces have a vital role to play in encouraging consumers back on to the buses, and that the innovation of companies such as Dennis has made it much easier for consumers to use buses?

Ms Jackson: I am delighted to hear that the bus industry in the hon. Gentleman's constituency is experiencing a marked upturn in investment. I have to say that that upturn has occurred only since 2 May—long may it continue.
I thank again the hon. Member for Ceredigion and all those within and without the House who have worked so tirelessly to support the Bill. We believe in the importance of road traffic reduction and of targets, which will show how the nation is progressing.
The Bill is a small measure—it cannot cover many of the issues that Conservative Members seemed to think it should—but it represents an important step, and could make a major difference to all the matters that have been mentioned today. I strongly commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Public Interest Disclosure Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New clause 1

COMPENSATION FOR UNFAIR DISMISSAL

'.—(1) An employee whose dismissal is regarded as unfair under section 103A of the 1996 Act shall be entitled to compensation for unfair dismissal. The amount of compensation awarded by the tribunal shall consist of—

(a) the full amount of loss which, it appears to the tribunal, has been suffered by the employee; and,
(b) any punitive damages which the tribunal thinks appropriate in the circumstances.

(2) In determining the amount of compensation under section (I) the tribunal may reduce the award by such amount as the tribunal considers equates to the fault of the employee or to his failure to mitigate his loss.'.—[Mrs. Gillan.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 1, in clause 8, page 7, line 30, leave out from beginning to end of line 17 on page 8.

Mrs. Gillan: It gives me great pleasure to move new clause 1, which concerns an important aspect of the Bill—compensation for unfair dismissal. As I have not had the opportunity to speak on the Bill before, may I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box? I know that he has been burning the candle at both ends—indeed, rumour has it that he attended a £500-a-plate dinner at the Hilton last night. I hope that that will not slow his responses or dim his perception. The paucity of Labour Members present suggests that few survived last night, and the fact no Liberal Democrats are here to participate in what I believe to be an extremely important debate gives rise to the question of what they, too, were up to last night. I hope that the Minister, who has a pivotal role in the Bill, will listen carefully to the arguments this afternoon, and that my colleagues and I can persuade him of the merits of the new clause and of amendment No. 1.
I pay tribute to the work that has been conducted on this measure by Public Concern at Work, and I pay special tribute to Mr. Guy Deyn, who has provided advice to all parties involved in the Bill.
The matter of compensation for unfair dismissal was aired only briefly in Committee, when the Minister told us that he had already discussed the issue at length with my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd)—who is to be congratulated on bringing the Bill before us. That means that the discussions that have taken place between my hon. Friend—the Bill's promoter—and the Minister have taken place in private. Instead of questioning whether that is right, let me express the hope that, in his reply, the Minister will reveal the details of his apparent objections to the new clause and the amendment, not least in light of the fact that—as I believe the Minister has admitted—the majority of the organisations consulted on the Bill came down in favour of the unlimited compensation proposals. 


The matter was discussed in greater detail in the previous Parliament, in 1996. If my memory serves me right, the Minister was involved in the proceedings on that occasion, and gave some indication that he supported such measures. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will tell us why he has apparently changed his mind. As he has changed the side of the House on which he sits, he has conveniently moved into another mode, now objecting to a measure that he purported to support when the previous Government were in office.

The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian McCartney): When I respond to the new clause, I shall respond in kind to what the hon. Lady said about last night.
May I say that she has got the historical record completely wrong? The previous Government would not accept the proposals that were in the Bill; indeed, they scuppered it, and it has been left to the incoming Administration to sit down with Public Concern and hon. Members on both sides of the House to come up with a workable proposal. As the hon. Lady was involved in that Government, I assume that she was party to the decision that scuppered the Bill in the previous Parliament.

Mrs. Gillan: I know that the Minister has had a heavy night but, if my memory serves me well from my reading of the report of the 1996 proceedings, my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor), then Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs, said that he had no intention of scuppering the Bill. Moreover, a reading of the proceedings—you will correct me if I am wrong, Mr. Deputy Speaker—reveals that the hon. Gentleman who is now the Minister was on his feet when the Bill ran out of time. I believe that the Minister is making a brave attempt on the morning after the night before, but I find it slightly incredible that he should try to use that argument at this stage, especially when I hope to persuade him of the merits of new clause 1 and amendment No. 1.
It may help the House if I give some background, especially to clause 8. Clause 8 provides that compensation for employees who have been dismissed for making a protected disclosure will be determined by regulations. That is the approach indicated in clause 4 for a worker who is disciplined or demoted, but not sacked. The worker will receive such compensation for his actual loss as is just and equitable. Where the worker has been at fault himself, or where he has failed to mitigate his loss, the award may be reduced. The awards for victimisation short of dismissal are subject to neither a minimum nor a maximum sum.
The Government's preferred approach appears to be that compensation for dismissal under the Bill should follow the precedent for health and safety representatives under the Employment Rights Act 1996, as the Minister has indicated. A sacked worker would receive his financial losses up to £11,300 plus, in exceptional cases, the penalty award of between £16,545 and £33,800. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, in his magnificent tour de force in the hour-long Committee stage, certainly raised his concerns on the matter. There is still a great deal of doubt that what the Minister is planning will satisfy the Bill's supporters.
The Bill will not meet the actual losses of a higher-paid individual, or of the whistleblower who remains unemployed for several years after being dismissed. With

the maximum, the Bill could have far less effect—for example, in the City. Cases such as that of BCCI, Barlow Clowes and the late Robert Maxwell's companies have been cited in support of the argument that we are making today. There may be natural reticence about providing employment to an individual involved in a high-profile case such as those I have mentioned.
Our proposals enjoy the support of the CBI, the Institute of Directors and the TUC. The Minister is aware that I have received a letter from Sarah Veale, the senior policy officer of the TUC. The House deserves the courtesy of hearing what the TUC has written about the matter. Ms Veale wrote that she noticed with interest the amendment on compensation tabled by my hon. Friends and me. She continued:
As you may be aware, there is near-unanimous support across industry for compensation for unfair dismissal for public disclosure to be uncapped. We fully support your amendment. We believe that the employment tribunal should be able to assess compensation and damages according to their assessment of the loss suffered by the employee. This is how compensation is assessed in discrimination claims and, in our view, is how it should be assessed for all breaches of employment legislation. We have made our views on this clear to the Government and to the mover of the Bill".
That is not an ambiguous letter couched in half-hearted terms—it is an expression of full support. If the Minister cannot be persuaded by my argument—or by those which will be deployed by my hon. Friends in the debate—I hope that he will be fully persuaded by the TUC. If he is not, I would hope to be a fly on the wall at the next meeting between the Minister and the TUC general secretary, John Monks. I am sure that the TUC will have words to say if the Minister does not listen. The same view is held by the CBI and the IOD, and that shows that it is a reasonable measure.
The Minister will no doubt argue that his stance shows that he is not in the pockets of the unions. That would be a trivial response to a proposal that would make the difference to many people. It would strengthen the Bill and ensure that it has the effect that my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills intended and that all right-minded employers and employees would wish it to have.

Sir Nicholas Lye11: The legislation is complex. The Bill, which would amend the 1996 Act, proposes that the Minister should have the power to make regulations under new section 127B. Has the Minister indicated to my hon. Friend what regulations he proposes to make? Would he make regulations that would render at large the amount of compensation that could be received by a whistleblower?

Mrs. Gillan: My right hon. and learned Friend is right to raise the issue. The answer is no, I have had no indication from the Minister. I did him the courtesy of discussing the matter briefly with him outside the Chamber before the debate. I hope that he retains an open mind. He gave me a mere glimmer of hope. We shall have to wait until he responds.
As with so much legislation, it seems that power is being retained by Ministers. Power is being held at the centre, giving Ministers much more control—whereas, in this case, it would be perfectly reasonable to devolve power to the tribunals, as we do with sex and race


discrimination cases. I live in hope that the Minister will be persuaded by my argument, and does not have a closed mind on the matter.
I shall not delay the House for too long. The new clause provides a greater incentive for well-paid employees—those arguably more likely to have access to potentially "blowable" information. It provides for a fair and just compensation award that recognises not only salary but the additional benefits. It passes discretion to the tribunal, which is fair and equitable.
In the light of the consensus of opinion among all the organisations that were consulted on the measure, I hope that the Minister will see that it is reasonable to accept the new clause. I shall listen carefully to the response.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: Will my hon. Friend clarify one point about the new clause? As well as taking away a maximum limit of compensation which the Employment Rights Act 1996 included, it does away with the minimum amount that is in the Bill, as amended. Many people might be concerned that, if there was a minimum amount to be gained by blowing the whistle, perhaps unjustifiably, it would encourage dissident employees to make false allegations against their company, in the hope that they might make some money out of it.

Mrs. Gillan: My hon. Friend is exactly right. The new clause removes that incentive, which might result in vexatious cases being brought.
I have taken enough of the House's time. I am keen to hear the Minister's response, but I know that many of my colleagues are keen to discuss this important matter and deploy further arguments. I shall listen carefully to the Minister.

Mr. Edward Garnier: I am not sure that I agree with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), and I am not sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) was right so readily to agree with him. The Bill presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) makes it clear that those who make unjustifiable or malicious whistleblowing allegations will not be susceptible to the protection of the Bill, so I do not believe that the removal of the minimum will encourage people to make false accusations.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: The problem is that industrial tribunals attract a great deal of uncomplimentary publicity for the company that is accused. That company may instinctively pay out rather than face bad publicity and an inevitably one-sided report. I believe that some minimum would encourage people to bring cases before tribunals and encourage companies to give way to blackmail.

Mr. Garnier: I know where my hon. Friend is coming from, but I do not accept that that underscores his objection. Defendants who are relatively better off than the complainant bringing proceedings against them are always placed in the difficult position of having to decide whether it is commercially worth while to defend the

action on its merits or whether it is better, on economic grounds, simply to pay the complainant to go away. Companies and better-off defendants currently face that problem with complainants who are on legal aid. The situation is no different in industrial tribunals, although I understand that no state assistance is provided for litigants on either side of the argument.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: May I put the point to my hon. and learned Friend in a different way? It will not always be a choice between no case on the one hand and an extremely blowable case on the other: there will be marginal cases. In those circumstances, employees may think that it is not worth the hassle bringing a case. However, if, on a balance of probabilities—my hon. and learned Friend may correct me if I have misremembered it—an employee can make the case stick and he wins £16,000 in one go, that will act as an incentive to take to tribunal the marginal cases that should never be heard.

Mr. Garnier: If that is my hon. Friend's argument, he should support our new clause, which will remove the minimum. If our new clause becomes law, anyone who puts a marginal case before the tribunal will recover rather less than the current minimum—indeed, he may recover a verdict but no reward. I do not know what cost penalty would be involved in those circumstances, but I think that the complainant would leave the tribunal hearing badly out of pocket, with his reputation as an honest broker somewhat impaired.

Mrs. Gillan: The issue is summed up partly by the comments of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) in Committee. He said:
My concerns are that the minimum award of £16,545 would be made irrespective of any loss and thus may be made in circumstances in which the tribunal does not think it just. As such. it might encourage claims that, otherwise, would not be brought"— [Official Report, Standing Committee D, 11 March 1998; c. 13.]
That is a good summary of the Bill from the short Committee stage.

Mr. Garnier: I prefer to call the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills my hon. Friend. Although his name is not attached to our new clause, I think that he would support the general thrust of our arguments. We shall have to wait and see.
The Minister gave me some comfort in Committee when he referred to an increase in the current levels of compensation under the Employment Rates (Increase of Limits) Order 1998. He told the Committee that the new arrangements from 1 April this year will mean a basic award of £2,000—or what we would call nowadays four places at dinner—a compensatory award and a special award of —14,500. The Minister went on to say that there will be a maximum award of £1220 multiplied by 30 weeks, which amounts to £6,600. A compensatory award of £0112,000 will be added to that, together with a special award of £29,000. Therefore, under the current order, the total, maximum figure is £47,600. That is good news as far as it goes, because it increases-if only marginally—the levels of compensation available under the Employment Rights Act 1996.

Mr. Ian McCartney: The hon. and learned Gentleman should not be so derisory about the increase. He was a


member of a Government who refused to make any increases, and it was up to this Government to bring compensation in line with what is reasonable in today's marketplace. The hon. and learned Gentleman supported a Government who refused, year after year, to increase those limits.

Mr. Garnier: I am sorry if the Minister misunderstood me. He is being a little over-sensitive. I appreciate that he has had to wait a little before we reached this debate, but I was saying that I was pleased to note—that was the intention that I was trying to get across—that the order has increased the limit, but that the limit should be done away with altogether, so that people can be better and more adequately compensated for the losses that they suffer as a consequence of doing their public duty—exposing misdemeanours, crimes, breakdowns in health and safety, and so on, as set out in earlier clauses, which define a permitted disclosure.
I do not want to have a row with the Minister, as that would not be helpful, but if he would like one, we can arrange to have it in due course. For the moment, I shall concentrate on the merits or demerits of the arguments in favour of my new clause, which is supported by two of my hon. Friends.
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) said, the Employment Rights Act 1996, which the Bill seeks to amend, is incredibly complicated. One has to look carefully at sections 117 to 127, which set out the compensation regime. One does not have to be a nuclear physicist—but quite close to it—to be able to devour all that and regurgitate it in a sensible form for a lay client.
The people who need advice under the Act will not necessarily be those most readily able to understand those sections. I dare say, but I may be completely wrong, that the category of person we are seeking to protect may be somewhat different. It is likely to be those who have deliberately decided to expose something that they think is wrong rather than the unwitting victim of bad conduct by an employer, be it a commercial concern or an individual.
I suspect that the individuals we are seeking to protect are better equipped to understand the sections to which I referred, and may be in the higher income brackets. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, who is promoting the Bill, is not doing so to protect one economic class. I have never heard him suggest anything of that sort. That is not how he thinks or works. However, it is inevitable that we shall disfranchise quite a cohort of people who earn rather more, or who stand to lose rather more, than the current maximum under the order, which was sensibly increased by the Minister the other day.
There will be a huge number of people-in the health service, local and central Government, as well as in the City, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham made clear-who earn the £47,000-odd maximum in a week or two. I regret to say that I do not. They will be disinclined to expose wrongdoing, in the City or in other areas where high salaries exist, because of the relatively low limits provided in the order.
I have a horror of government and legislation by regulation. I prefer those enactments to be on the face of the Bill, but that is another week's work. I see that the

hon. Member for Dudley, North (Mr. Cranston) is keeping a close eye on me, so I shall be careful in what I say. In common law, in actions for breach of contract or wrongful dismissal, there are areas available to a complainant or plaintiff that would allow higher awards for damages. If translated into the Bill, they would allow the tribunal to give a fairer assessment of the loss to the unfairly dismissed complainant in the event of his being in need of compensation.
1.30 pm
Some employees who are dismissed for whistleblowing may be fortunate enough, because of the publicity surrounding the way in which they made the disclosure, to be re-employed pretty quickly. Let us take the example of someone working in the national health service who exposes misconduct by a consultant or a department in a hospital, who as a result of that disclosure receives tremendous publicity in the newspapers. Much of that publicity will denigrate the person who made the disclosure for speaking out of turn. No doubt that person and his or her family will have to undergo the most appalling public criticism from some for letting the employer down or letting the side down and not being a team player.
On the other hand, there will be another group of people whose views will, no doubt, be reflected in and approved by the media. They will applaud the person for exposing a particular wrong or a series of examples of misconduct. Given that treatment in the public prints, it may be that the person concerned will attract employment from another employer in the health world, perhaps in the private sector, which means that he will not lose as a consequence of having lost his previous employment. In such cases, the money question does not bite.
I am mindful of the strict laws in Switzerland that apply to telling tales out of school, which mean that an employee can be dismissed summarily without compensation, as I understand them. The chances of such a person being re-employed in Switzerland, in the financial sector or in any other economically meaningful sector there are pretty small, if not impossible.
Hon. Members will no doubt recall the case in Switzerland two or three years ago of a man who was eventually driven to suicide by his inability to come to terms with his failure to be re-employed. He felt that he had let his family down by exposing them to penury. In some senses, it was felt that he had let his country down by talking out of turn.
I produced that case to simplify my argument, but given that extreme case, I suggest that the Bill, as drafted, does not assist very much. A man on a basic salary of £100,000, who may be entitled to bonuses—they are not unheard of in the City, even under a new Labour Government—of £200,000, £300,000, £400,000 or £500,000, in addition to share options, private medical health insurance and other perks such as cheaper mortgage rates or subsidised mortgage rates, will find it extremely difficult to work out where his best interests lie.
Would that person's interests lie in public disclosure, following a proper assessment of his public duty, in relaying to the proper recipient of information the fact that some wrongdoing, fraud or misconduct is taking place within his firm or within the sector of the City with which he is concerned, or would he say, "There is no point, no


matter how bad I feel about it and no matter how bad I think what I know is—1'm not going to give up my package of half a million pounds for maximum compensation of a little under £50,000"? It would be unrealistic to expect that to happen.
One or two public-spirited people—not the majority—would cast aside thoughts of the likely compensation, either because they are independently well off or because they have made arrangements to meet their family's commitments. The compensation levels in the Bill would discourage public-spirited, law-abiding people from coming forward to give a good account to the proper authorities of what has happened, so that the public would be better protected from misdeeds in high places or in places to which they do not usually have access.
My next point concerns another aspect of the common law. Again, I look to the hon. Member for Dudley, North—I hope that I do not embarrass him by saying that he is a noted commercial lawyer—to discover whether I am right that the courts can take into account loss of reputation as a consequence of unfair dismissal.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire will remember from law school the case concerning Addis v. the Gramophone Company, from which an employee was dismissed in humiliating circumstances. In 1909, the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords decided that, even though he was dismissed in abhorrent and objectionable circumstances that struck at his reputation, he could not recover damages under the unfair dismissal claim for the increased hurt to his feelings caused by the manner in which he was dismissed.
We must distinguish between feelings and reputation. A man's reputation can be destroyed by being sacked for whistleblowing perfectly properly and in the public interest, and the tribunal should take into account the damage to his reputation in his sector of employment. In the City, for example, trust and financial confidentiality are important. A stockbroker, banker or dealer may be thought by his peer group to have gone outside regimental ethics and breached—properly, in one sense, but improperly in the in-house sense—the parameters within which such matters are considered in the industry.
Such a person should be compensated, or the court should at least have available to it a means of compensating him for the additional injury to his reputation. As a consequence of going outside the laager and speaking against his colleagues, even though some of them may grudgingly admire him, such a person would never get a job in that sector again.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am most grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for referring to the common law position, which is confined to the damages that are relevant to the notice period, which may be two years or six months, or even a week or a month. The sum would be modest. The question is whether someone who, in the public interest, puts at risk his future livelihood and ability to work again should be confined to compensation under employment

rights legislation. The first step was taken by Lord Howe with the 1971 industrial relations legislation, which is relevant to the debate.

Mr. Ian Stewart: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Garner: The hon. Gentleman is a well-known joker, and I invite my right hon. and learned Friend not to give way to him, because I am still on my feet.
I entirely agree with my right hon. and learned Friend, and I draw to his attention a paragraph from a textbook with which he is familiar—McGregor on Damages". The paragraph states:
Injury to reputation stands on a slightly different footing from injury to feelings. In so far as the injury to reputation results in a non-pecuniary loss it is irrecoverable, as is the non-pecuniary loss from the injury to feelings, but it is possible that the injury to reputation may cause pecuniary loss if it causes the plaintiff to have more difficulty in obtaining new employment.
That is broadly what I was saying before my right hon. and learned Friend intervened.
I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills and the Minister to take a view on the matter. We are debating an area of public and private conduct in which the reputation of a person is at stake. If, as a consequence of doing their public duty, people lose everything, it would be unjust for the courts not to provide on behalf of the House a proper way to compensate them at a proper level.

Mr. Stewart: I have tried not to intervene on the hon. and learned Gentleman, because I know that he is sincere. However, it is a bit rich for Opposition Members to show such concern for a section of the work force that is in a high wage bracket. I remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that his Government removed protection from millions of workers, by raising the qualifying period for industrial tribunals from six months to two years.
Perhaps I could put the matter in context. Since the industrial tribunals legislation was implemented, less than 25 per cent. of applicants have been successful, and the average award has been of hundreds rather than thousands. Opposition views would be more appropriate if the previous Government had shown for low-waged people who were unfairly dismissed the sympathy that the hon. and learned Gentleman expresses for higher-waged people.

Mr. Garnier: As the hon. Gentleman is an experienced and respected trade union official in the north-west, his comments are not surprising. I wish that he could make them to the previous Government but, sadly, they are the previous Government and there is nothing that I can do about that, much as I regret their demise. I advise the hon. Gentleman to visit the Vote Office and look at section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, because in that he may find one or two words of comfort.

Mr. Nicholls: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that it is not a question of sympathising with high wage earners who have much to lose if they blow the whistle? As he says, unless the matter is dealt with, they will not make use of the legislation and of the good intentions and consensus in the House. The debate is not about sympathy but about the legislation having practical effect.

Mr. Garnier: I agree with my hon. Friend. Wages have increased tremendously over the past 25 to 30 years, and many traditional Labour supporters—this is not a party political point—such as head teachers and nurses, whose salary of £46,000 may not be reflected in the maximum under the order, stand to lose much more than that over time.
It does not matter whether one is a coil winder earning £200 a week or the international chief executive of Megaton plc. What they have to consider is what they will lose if they tell the truth about what is going on. If they are going to be compensated only up to a maximum of £46,000, £47,000 or £48,000, whichever the exact figure is, it will not encourage a head of a big comprehensive, a senior or even junior nurse, a general practitioner, or a middle manager in a factory in the constituency of the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart), still less one of his most ill-paid employees, so I ask him to bear it in mind that we are talking about just compensation for the total loss. We are not talking about comparing annual salaries, although, obviously, it is useful to bear them in mind.
I shall sit down at this point, because I should like other hon. Members to address the House on this important matter.

Mr. Nicholls: When I came to this, I thought that it was a slightly strange debate because, although my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) made the point that the Bill had been discussed exhaustively in Committee, it has not been exhaustively discussed on the Floor of the House. As I recollect, Second Reading went ahead on the nod.

Mrs. Gillan: The point that I was trying to make was that the Bill had not been extensively discussed. It has had only one hour in Committee, and it went through on the nod on Second Reading. I am sad that we have not been able to debate the Bill at more length, because it is of great significance.

Mr. Nicholls: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The fact that the debate seemed to take on a slightly Second Reading hue was in some ways inevitable, bearing it in mind that the broad principle of the Bill has not been discussed. That is slightly unusual. It must have happened before, but I cannot immediately recollect it. A detailed Committee discussion has taken place even though the broad merits of the Bill have not been debated on Second Reading.
I always find that the Bills introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) are usually well worth having a look at and supporting, but something troubled me about this Bill. I do not know whether I am alone in saying that I felt slightly queasy about it until I started to examine the detail and to think about it.
I suppose old habits die. I said to myself, "Are we legislating for a sneak's charter?" Are we in the business of encouraging difficult troublemakers, the awkward squad, who exist in any organisation, by almost giving them financial incentives to behave in a way that many of us would find unattractive?
To be fair, I do not think that that is correct, even if the Bill comes across that way to begin with. Reference has been made to some of the more famous cases where whistleblowers have been ruined. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) reminded us of the case in Switzerland in which an employee was literally ruined—by the sound of it, unto death—because he had had the courage to come out and talk about the corruption in his organisation.
We have not yet heard anyone say—perhaps because we have not had many contributions from Labour Members; I look forward to hearing them—that it is wrong to compensate, and that, if something is right, one should come out and do it. That is marvellous stuff for us to say on the Floor of the House and sounds very noble, but, frankly, it does not matter whether someone is earning £200, £2,000 or £20,000 a week.
During the course of a relatively long life, I have never met anyone who did not have any trouble living up to their income level. Whistleblowers have to contemplate taking a decision that could wreck not only their lives, but those of their wives and children. Therefore, if we are going to ask someone virtually to make the supreme gesture by coming out, taking their chance before a tribunal and perhaps making themselves unemployable—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has reminded the House that this is not a Second Reading debate. I should be grateful if he would try to confine his remarks to the new clause and the amendment.

Mr. Nicholls: The point that I was going to make was simply this. If someone is going to do that, compensation must have some relevance. I look forward to hearing from the Minister when he replies. I do not see what the argument is for not removing the minimum and for not ensuring at least that the tribunal or whatever body is used has the discretion to make up its mind at what level it should compensate.
The minimum payment may not be the most important aspect of the new clause, but it is important. I cannot see any reason for a minimum payment. Having been both an employer and employee, I can see every possible argument for not making it possible to win a big prize with a technical victory, and I am sure that that was not the intention. It is one of the matters that might have come out in a Second Reading debate. However, as things stand, we could be looking at that scenario.
There will be marginal cases. A responsible, prudent person might go to his employer and say, "I am extremely unhappy about this situation. It may not be desperately important, but it is not right and something should be done about it." That would be a relatively low-key case. It is wrong to have as an alternative simply going down to the tribunal to win a quick prize of £16,545 minimum.
In the past, I have criticised decisions taken by the judiciary and by lawyers. However, I have enough confidence in the tribunal system to want it to decide what the level of compensation should be. A minimum payment does not have a part in that.
Let us examine the case—which the new clause reflects—for saying that there should not be a maximum payment of £45,000 or thereabouts. What will be the effect if the Bill passes into law but the new clause fails? The legislation will not be used. It actually reads better


than the Road Traffic Reduction (National Targets) Bill, which we debated earlier. It is extraordinary that this Bill could turn out to be just as useless. I do not think that any of us wants that. There is a consensus that legislation is necessary, that we have learnt by events that it is necessary, and that we want to make it work. If a maximum payment is imposed, the Bill will not work.
Implicit in all that—my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough touched on this—pis that, when a tribunal comes to consider a major whistleblowing case, it must have the ability to consider all the consequences. Let us take the case of someone on a substantial financial package, with free health care and so on—a major amount of money being put at risk. If that person had detected, for example, fraud in a merchant bank, in an ideal world all the other merchant banks would say, "That's marvellous; that's a very honest chap—let's have him in our organisation." And pigs may fly.
I suspect that, when someone goes in for a major whistleblowing exercise, whether aged 20, 40, 50 or 65, the reality is that he will probably never work again. We are expecting people to take the chance of litigation and put their reputations heavily under threat. Let us be fair—tribunals and courts can be quirky, so people have to face the fact that they might lose. Therefore, we must at least give the tribunal the opportunity to consider the possibility that the person may never work again.
I do not make light of the fact that, when we hear some of the figures being bandied about, it is tempting to say, "It's all very well for those earning a lot, but if you're only on 200 quid a week it might look different." It is not a question of that—we want the Bill to succeed; we want people to use it. However, we do not want to give people an artificial incentive to use it. That is why having a minimum payment would be utterly wrong.
We have to face the fact that the people who will use the legislation may lose everything. They will be putting their reputations on the line. They will have to face the fact that they may never be employed again. That is precisely the type of issue that might have arisen on Second Reading, and it has not been thought through properly.
I have deliberately kept my remarks brief because I know that some of my hon. Friends want to speak, and I cannot imagine that some Labour Members would not wish to contribute. When the Minister replies, I hope he will say that, no matter how he feels about the drafting, if the Bill is to succeed, it has to be useable. Without the new clause, it might just as well stay on the lawyers' shelf because, for all the use that it will be put to, that is where it will belong.

Mr. Ian McCartney: I congratulate the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) on the progress that he has made so far, supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Mr. Cranston) and others. My Department is also grateful for the help provided by the charity Public Concern at Work.
A good Bill has been improved in Committee, and I look forward to further progress being made today to ensure that, after many years of campaigning in and outside the House, with a great deal of support from the business community, from organisations that represent

workers and from academia, we can at last put in place legislation to protect people who, until now, have suffered greatly for having the guts and integrity to put in the public domain things that would otherwise have remained secret. Because there has been no protection for such people, they have often suffered detriment to their health and their career. The Government strongly support the Bill, but I cannot accept the new clause.
Like the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) I enjoyed a meal last night. We shared a taxi—I went to one very expensive hotel and she went to another. I enjoyed every morsel of my meal as I sat back, enjoying the celebration of the first year of the Labour Government—and what a year it has been for employment rights and the changing nature of British society.

Mrs. Gillan: I thank the Minister for revealing our travelling arrangements to the rest of the world. I believe that my dinner was more enjoyable because I was learning about the pharmaceutical industry, not paying £500 towards Labour party funds.

Mr. McCartney: That probably means that the hon. Lady did not pay for her meal at all. Never mind, I am sure that she enjoyed not only the discussion but the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, who, in the first year of the Labour Government, is proving to be the most successful Secretary of State for Health, since the creation of the national health service. I am pleased that, although the hon. Lady did not have the opportunity to celebrate new Labour, she was able to celebrate the new NHS under new Labour.

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: rose—

Mr. McCartney: I have hardly started, but I shall give way.

Mr. St. Aubyn: It is not strictly relevant, but perhaps the Minister could clarify his comment. Is he praising the Secretary of State for Health for the fact that waiting lists have increased by nearly 100,000 since Labour came to power?

Mr. McCartney: I am praising my right hon. Friend for getting rid of the Conservatives' plans to privatise the national health service and for putting millions of pounds into the service. We are reducing waiting lists—indeed, 18-month waiting lists have gone, ahead of schedule. By the next election, we shall have a health service of which the country will be proud.
My right hon. Friend has had a role to play in tackling the problems facing whistleblowers. One of his first actions as Secretary of State for Health was to remove the previous Government's gagging clause on doctors and nurses, clauses that led to the sacking of Graham Pink and the destruction of his career. The previous Government wanted to silence his criticism of the NHS under the Tories, so we shall take no political lessons from them.
I hope that our debate on the Bill will take the same approach as the Government. Along with the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, Members of all political persuasions want to see the Bill—

Mrs. Gillan: On the statute book.

2 pm

Mr. McCartney: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. Obviously I got to bed later than she did.
Compensation under the Bill will be determined by secondary legislation. However, it is our view that compensation should be based on remedies available under existing employment legislation. After all, the Bill is an employment measure.
We believe that compensation limits generally should be increased in line with inflation. Indeed, we recently announced increases with effect from 1 April this year. In the longer term, we shall want to consider whether the limits and arrangements for reviewing compensation work in the best way to achieve fair minimum standards and a competitive business environment.
I know that the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills has had discussions with the banking sector in respect of third-party disclosure. It is certainly not the intention that, where a bank has acted diligently, it should be liable for a breach of confidence claim by a client when a bank employee has made a public interest disclosure.
I understand that one of the reasons behind the new clause is that higher earners should be properly compensated if they blow the whistle. To limit compensation would prevent that. As hon. Members will be aware, the Government favour following the compensation model currently available for health and safety disclosure. Contrary to apparently popular belief, the sums available in such cases are by no means insignificant. Where someone is dismissed unfairly and does not get his job back despite a re-employment order having been made, the compensation is based on three times annual salary. So while someone on average earnings of £368 a week could receive more than £57,000, someone on £1,500 a week could receive £234,000 and those earning the equivalent of £ 1 million a year—such as the individuals that have been mentioned in the debate—could receive £3 million in compensation. In the case mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), who is no longer in his place, the compensation would be £1.5 million.
Therefore, the proposal before the House is not insignificant, and potentially takes into account the earnings levels of all those—low, average and high earners—who could be covered by the Bill. There is no cause for concern or worry among hon. Members or those outside the House that the Government's intention is any different from that of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills and his supporters—to put in place a compensation regime that takes into account the losses that people may suffer if they lose their employment as a result of having acted within the context of the legislation.
I hope that my assurances and the figures that I have provided in respect of the Government's intentions will make it possible for the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham and her hon. Friends to withdraw the new clause so that we can proceed a little further towards ensuring that the Bill reaches the statute book. From that moment onwards, there will he legislation to ensure people in Britain who have the courage and commitment to enter the public domain to assist the public will not suffer the same disadvantages as they do now.

Mr. St. Aubyn: I shall not detain the House long. I do not often agree with Labour Members, and I have some

reservations about the full scope of the new clause. My hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) warned against creating a nark's charter. The unfortunate and no doubt unintended consequence of the new clause might be to create a super-nark's charter.
Some months ago, we had a debate on industrial tribunals in which I made the point that it is important to set a limit on compensation in cases of dismissal because, without such a limit, the position of smaller businesses could be extremely vulnerable. In cases arising under the Bill where a small business has committed some misdemeanour, justice may not be served if that firm is exposed to the risk of a high level of damages being awarded to a former employee. The situation might not be black and white, or the former employee might have a private agenda in bringing the company's wrongdoing to the authorities' attention. If the court is obliged to consider the full financial consequences for the former employee in an extremely favourable light, the balance might swing in favour of the employee, at the expense both of the firm and of the other people whom that firm legitimately employees.
The House should be cautious about agreeing to amendments that allow for unlimited compensation for former employees. We heard from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) of the plight of formerly well-paid ex-employees. One reason why those in the City are paid handsome compensation for the time and effort that they give to their employers is that they often do not expect to be in such lucrative employment for very long. One of the risks of their job is that, if they simply make a bad call on the market, demand for the services rapidly diminishes. The fact that such an employee may, as a result of exercising his or her conscience—something that many would do in any event—suffer some financial loss is part of the risks and rewards they accept when they go to work in such a high-risk environment.
Many such employees will have planned to use the generous remuneration that they receive during their years working in that world to go and do something else quite different when they leave. I believe that, in one case, a trader at a large American bank who had been earning tens of millions of year decided to become a Catholic priest at the age of 35. We cannot predict what such employees will do, but we can state, based on that case, that they have a conscience and that they do not need money to be persuaded to exercise it.

Mr. Robert Walter: I shall be able to keep my remarks brief, as many of the points I wanted to cover have been raised by my hon. Friends. We are dealing with the integrity of our financial markets and financial institutions. The new clause would cover some of the highest-paid employees in financial institutions, and, if the Bill is to be effective in the City of London, we must accept it.
BCCI and Barlow Clowes have already been mentioned; I would add Barings and, from the United States and Japan, Drexel Burnham Lambert and The Sumitomo Trust and Banking Company, whose activities extend to this country. A catastrophic disaster beset Barings, but it is possible that certain people within Barings knew what Nick Leeson was doing. If the Bill,


with the new clause in it, had been in force at that time, they might have been prepared to blow the whistle earlier and, in so doing, save Barings from disaster.

Mr. St. Aubyn: In the case of Barings, people did indeed know—but did not understand—what was going on in Singapore. The problem was one of comprehension. Many of those who knew what was going on would certainly have had an interest in bringing it to the attention of management if only they had understood it.

Mr. Walter: I do not want to enter into a lengthy debate about what happened at Barings, but I suspect that some people preferred their bonuses to be looked after by Mr. Leeson than to blow the whistle.
The financial markets, especially in the City of London, have the highest integrity and command the highest respect in the world. We continue to set high standards for them—through the Financial Services Authority, for example. If those institutions are not to be brought into disrepute—or brought down—by the occasional rogue, we must ensure that people can blow the whistle when they see wrongdoing, so I believe that we should incorporate the new clause and the amendment into the Bill.

Mrs. Gillan: We have had a long debate on the new clause and the amendment, and I should say now that I do not intend to speak on Third Reading, as I am conscious that time is pressing and I want the Bill to be enacted.
I hope that the Bill will act as a deterrent to employers who might be minded to rely on the inaction of their employees in the face of malpractice. I hope, too, that it will reassure employees that they will not be victimised if they speak out on good grounds. I believe that it will make a positive contribution to the means available to combat fraud—it should be welcomed.
I am very disappointed with the Minister's response to the new clause. His wits have obviously been dulled by the events of last night, as he has not been persuaded by the powerful arguments of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) and my hon. Friends the Members for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) and for North Dorset (Mr. Walter).
I am sad that, as time is pressing, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) has not been able to contribute to the debate, but I hope that common sense will prevail when the Bill is considered further, especially in another place. It is not often that a Minister stands out against a measure that is recommended by the Institute of Directors, the Confederation of British Industry, the Trades Union Congress, all the other parties that were consulted and the majority of hon. Members—it is a brave Minister who stands like a little terrier guarding his hole. I know that I shall not persuade the Minister—he has dug his little heels in, which is a great shame—but in the greater interests of the Bill, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 11

NATIONAL SECURITY

Mr. David Maclean: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 8, line 29, leave out from beginning to end of line 32 and insert—
'"(4) Part IVA and sections 47B and 103A do not have effect in relation to categories of employment and certain employees employed in the security service, the Secret Intelligence Service or the Government Communications Headquarters, in respect of which there is in force a certificate issued by or on behalf of a Minister of the Crown certifying that employment of a description specified in the certificate, or the employment of a particular person so specified, is (or at a time specified in the certificate, was) required to be excepted from those provisions for the purpose of safeguarding national security.".'.
I suspect that, in the time available, we shall not be able to do justice either to this important amendment or to amendment No. 3, which concerns the police service. The Government would be wise to accept the amendments when they are given more attention in another place—the Minister should not believe everything that his Department is told by other Whitehall Departments about the absolute need to give the security services everything for which they ask.
The amendment would bring some security service employees in from the cold and in to the warmth and shelter of the Bill. It would cover the non-operational employees of the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service and Government communications headquarters. It would not cover operational members, but I want to ensure that office cleaners or messengers, for example, in the security services, who do not deal with sensitive matters of national security, can pop up and blow the whistle—without affecting national security—on appalling waste, maladministration or a member of the service who buys a desk as expensive as that of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
When blanket official secrets coverage is given to every person working in the security services, some non-operational failures are covered up—the price of the privilege is also that the security services cannot talk about their successes. There is no reason in the world why failures of office management and resource management in the secret services should not be aired. They have survived public revelations, decades ago, that they were thoroughly penetrated by Soviet agents, and I expect the services to survive some public and semi-public whistleblowing on day-to-day, routine blundering.
It is not good enough for the secret services to argue, "It is national security; we do a terribly important job; we must have carte blanche coverage." That argument has not been accepted by the House in recent years, and I suggest to the Minister that the Department of Trade and Industry should not accept that argument now that it is being used by the Foreign Office and the Home Office to persuade the DTI that their secret service agencies and everyone in them—not just some categories of employee—should be exempt.
2.15 pm
I could say much more, but I shall curtail my remarks. I simply point out to the Minister that the Official Secrets Act 1911 already ring-fences the vital topics that are properly within the scope of national security. In 1989, to


produce the latest revision of the Official Secrets Act, the House did much work on and debated at length what is and what is not, in essence, a state secret. The purpose of that work was to determine who should, and who should not, be prosecuted under the Act. I believe that we can capitalise on that work and apply it to the Bill.
The Official Secrets Act 1989 defines as secret any official information to do with
security and intelligence, defence or international relations
and information obtained in confidence from other states, or from international organisations. It also includes information likely to result
in the commission of an offence
or likely to impede
the prevention or detection of offences
and
special investigations under statutory warrant
such as interception of communications.
Those categories are widely drawn—some would say so widely drawn that they almost restore the catch-all nature of previous versions of the Act. In any case, we can confidently say that everything important to national security is protected and that the Bill does not protect anyone who breaks the Official Secrets Act because it is part of the criminal law. I argue that any revelations that are not caught by the Official Secrets Act are fit and proper to come under legislation to shelter legitimate whistleblowers.
I do not blame the Minister, because probably he was not anticipating this in Committee, but I am afraid that we did not hear an adequate explanation from the Government, in Committee, of why every person in the Security Service, the SIS and GCHQ, whether or not they were dealing with state secrets, should be protected.
I understand perfectly why those services are protected. It is usual for them to say to the Home Office and the Foreign Office, "Get us exemption from the Bill: we are the Security Service; we should be exempt," and most Departments believe it.
The Minister should tell the Cabinet Committee about today's debate and say that if there is to be any hope of the Bill passing through the other place, the Home Office and the Foreign Office must get back to the SIS, the Security Service and GCHQ and tell them, "Give us genuine reasons for exempting your whole service—or rely on the certification procedure suggested by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean)."

Mr. Ian McCartney: I hope that my response to the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) will be positive and proactive. We must wait and see whether it is adequate to enable him to withdraw his amendment—or to withdraw it so that he may fight another day.
The amendment is unnecessary and would have no practical effect. I am sure that hon. Members agree that national security cannot be compromised. The agencies to which clause 11 and amendment No. 2 relate deal with highly sensitive information, the disclosure of which would greatly damage national security. The Government have recognised the special position of those agencies in our proposals for a freedom of information Bill, from which they are to be excluded. Anyone who works in them could have access to sensitive information, even

when that is not part of their main duties. The ethos of these agencies is secrecy, and blowing the whistle to an outsider is contrary to that ethos.
I agree that it would be unacceptable if employees of the agencies enjoyed lesser protection than other employees where there was no good reason for it. That is why one of the first steps the Government took after coming to office was to restore the right of trade union membership to employees of GCHQ, which was withdrawn by the previous Government—of which the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border was a prominent member for many years. The right hon. Gentleman was a Minister of State at the Home Office and other Departments with sensitive information.
The previous Government prosecuted and tried to gaol civil servants who blew the whistle—remember Clive Ponting and Sarah Tisdall? The previous Government tried at every opportunity to gag members of the civil service and trade unionists to prevent their putting into the public domain on occasions legitimate information. I take with a large bag of salt the case put by the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon in respect of his conversion to openness in government and the protection of employment rights in the civil service, or for those who work for the Government at various levels outside the civil service.
It is not the case that workers in the agencies will have no means of expressing legitimate concerns. They will be able to raise them under well-established internal procedures. If an intelligence agency employee believes that his or her concerns are not being adequately dealt with, they can raise the matter with the staff counsellor, who has a broad remit across the three security agencies—GCHQ, the Security Service and the Secret Intelligence Service—and can act quickly and effectively to resolve any concerns that may be raised. In addition, there are internal disciplinary, security and audit procedures that can be used to investigate possible illegalities and problems.
Furthermore, all Crown servants are subject to the Crown Office guidance document "Giving Evidence or Information about Suspected Crimes". Taken together, these procedures provide the type of safeguard that will encourage people in the security services to raise matters of concern in a responsible manner, consistent with the aims of the Bill. I therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will be kind enough to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Maclean: I am disappointed that the Minister has not satisfied me on this. I recognise some of the arguments—I used them repeatedly over the years when I was arguing measures in the Home Office. His argument will be successful today as I shall not push the amendment to a vote and risk losing an important Bill, but the answer he has given today—that the security services must be exempt from everything—will not satisfy the other place. Nevertheless, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 13

POLICE OFFICERS

Mr. Maclean: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 8, line 39, leave out from beginning to end of line 4 on page 9.
I wish to speak for no more than two minutes on the amendment. We are led to believe that the Bill has not been extended to cover police officers because the Home Office is working on new procedures to obtain openness and accountability in police forces. That is all very well, but it is not a reason in itself to cold-shoulder the police from the benefits of the Bill. When the Home Office gets round to that review—I have not checked, but this must be the 20th or 30th Home Office review—it may come up with procedures, but that is no reason why the police cannot be included in the Bill.
I want to impress on the House the value of police officers having the same rights and procedures available to them as civilians. If the Minister does not want to believe me, he may believe the chief constable of Sussex who, I believe, is head of the Association of Chief Police Officers committee in charge of public information. He said:
I was surprised to see that it is proposed to exclude police officers. I find this puzzling, since police support staff who may well have access to the same information will not be excluded.
The same argument applies to the secret services. The chief constable continued:
If I take my own case as a police officer, I would be excluded from the provisions of the Bill, but my personal assistant, who has access to all the information that I do, will be protected by it. I believe that this is wrong. This association has taken a very firm stance in seeking to emphasise the need for integrity in police operations and honesty among all staff in the police service. Police forces have nothing to fear from malpractices being revealed. In fact, the contrary is the case—that chief officers of police need to know where corrupt and improper practice is going on so that they may tackle it as soon and as effectively as possible.
In another place, the Minister should look favourably on including the police service, because it wants to be included in the scope of the Bill.

Mr. Ian McCartney: The amendment is unnecessary. The Government gave an absolute commitment in Committee and outside the Committee to the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and the sponsors of the Bill that the police regulations will

provide protection equivalent to that in the Bill. That has been welcomed. There will be no disparity in the treatment of police officers, or in their capacity to whistleblow in the circumstances set out in the Bill.
Police officers are office-holders and are subject to a separate regulatory regime. With the Under—Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), we are working to bring the two regimes into an interlocking arrangement to ensure that police officers will be protected to the full if they put information into the public domain.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept those assurances. As a former Minister of State in the Home Office, he will understand the steps that my hon. Friend is taking to ensure that the regulations are upgraded. Those regulations were introduced by the right hon. Gentleman. It seems that he did not quite get it right, but I give a commitment that this Government will get it right. In the relationship between the police force and the Home Office, police officers will have proper and adequate protection.

Mr. Maclean: I was confident that the regulations were right when they were introduced. They can always be added to, and no doubt improved. The Bill would give better protection than police regulations, but I was not convinced at all by the Minister's argument. I know that the other place will not be convinced either, but for reasons that I think the House will understand, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I wish to thank many people, honourable citizens in the House and without the House, and the Department of State.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Waste Minimisation Bill

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 1

POWER OF CERTAIN LOCAL AUTHORITIES TO TAKE STEPS TO MINIMISE GENERATION OF HOUSEHOLD, COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL WASTE

Mr. David Maclean: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 18, at end insert
`and shall also consult those whom the authority believes are the principal generators of controlled waste.'.
The promoter of the Bill, the hon. Member for Basildon (Angela Smith), was kind enough to tell me that, although she was tempted to accept the amendment, she was unable to do so. Without embarrassing anybody, I assume that the Government had concluded that they could not accept my amendment. I regret that.
The amendment merely invites the Government—although it would put an obligation on the Government—to consult those whom the local waste authority perceives to be the main causers of waste. I am at a loss to understand why anyone should object to such consultation. My amendment does not suggest that the waste authority must be bound by what the generators of the waste say, or that the legislation must be amended accordingly. It merely adds to the list of those consulted a requirement to consult those perceived to be the generators of the waste. I hope that the Minister will explain briefly why she could not accept that simple amendment.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Angela Eagle): I shall try to reassure the right hon. Gentleman.

We expect local authorities to consult, but we do not want a strong statutory provision for particular people to be consulted, when the parent legislation that the Bill would amend contains no such consultation measures. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept my assurances that we envisage that there will be such consultation, but we do not want it included statutorily in the Bill. It would unbalance the legislation that the Bill would amend.
This enabling Bill is welcome and has support throughout the House. We fully expect local authorities that take it up to consult, but we want that to come about through guidelines rather than legislation.

Mr. Maclean: Although I am not reassured by the hon. Lady and I may wish to return to the matter on another occasion, I shall not pursue the issue today. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—(Angela Smith.]

Mr. Maclean: As I am not satisfied by the answer that I have received from the Minister, I wish to say a few words on Third Reading. While the Bill is reasonably innocuous, some of my concerns about it have not been addressed today. I shall not seek to talk about an amendment that, unfortunately, was not selected. It suggested that the word "anything" in line 11 of the Bill was rather wide and carte blanche.

It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed on Friday 3 July.

Remaining Private Members? Bill

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (BEER AND CIDER) BILL

Order read for consideration (not amended in the Standing Committee).

Hon. Members: Object.

To be considered on Friday 3 July.

BREEDING AND SALE OF DOGS BILL

Order read for consideration (as amended in the Standing Committee).

Hon. Members: Object.

To be considered on Friday 3 July.

ENERGY CONSERVATION (HOUSING) BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered. Order for Third Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Third Reading deferred till Friday 3 July.

ENERGY EFFICIENCY BILL

Order read for consideration (as amended in the Standing Committee).

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Colin Breed: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) to object to the Bill and impose his will on the House, when the Bill has the support of those on his Front Bench and of the Government?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): It is quite in order for the right hon. Gentleman to object in that way.

To be considered on Friday 3 July.

LOCAL AUTHORITY TENDERS BILL

Order read for consideration (as amended in the Standing Committee).

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Further consideration what day? No day named.

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE (PROTECTION OF TITLE) BILL

Order read for consideration in Committee.

Hon. Members: Object.

Committee deferred till Friday 3 July.

PRIVATE HIRE VEHICLES (LONDON) BILL

Order read for consideration in Committee.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Committee what day?

Dr. Jenny Tonge: On 3 July.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Lady have the authority of the hon. Member in charge of the Bill?

Dr. Tonge: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Committee deferred till Friday 3 July.

PREVENTION OF DELAY IN TRIALS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 3 July.

LEAD IN PAINT (HEALTH AND SAFETY) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 3 July.

WARM HOMES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION (FIFTEEN YEAR PROGRAMME) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 3 July.

COLD WEATHER PAYMENTS (WIND CHILL FACTOR) BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [23 January], That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Hon. Members: Object.

Debate to be resumed on Friday 3 July.

RECYCLED CONTENT OF NEWSPRINT BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 3 July.

WATER INDUSTRY (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 3 July.

HOME ZONES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 3 July.

ENERGY EFFICIENCY (INFORMATION) BILL

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (EXPERIMENTAL ARRANGEMENTS) BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 3 July.

GENEVA CONVENTIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 3 July.

ELECTRO-CONVULSIVE THERAPY (RESTRICTIONS ON USE) BILL

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

PUBLIC RECORDS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [30 January], That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Hon. Members: Object.

Debate to be resumed on Friday 3 July.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY CHANGES (REFERENDUM) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 3 July.

FARMING OF ANIMALS FOR FUR (PROHIBITION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 3 July.

COMPANIES (MILLENNIUM COMPUTER COMPLIANCE) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 3 July.

REFORM OF QUARANTINE REGULATIONS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 3 July.

VOLUNTARY PERSONAL SECURITY CARDS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 3 July.

MILLENNIUM CONFORMITY BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 3 July.

LICENSING (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 3 July.

MENTAL HEALTH (AMENDMENT) (No. 2) BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 3 July.

REGISTERED ESTABLISHMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL

Read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills),

That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Question agreed to.

To be immediately considered in Committee.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have a short statement to make. Occupants of the Chair have in the past deprecated proceeding at once from Second Reading to Committee if the Bill has only recently been printed. In this case, I should inform the House that the Bill was published only yesterday, on 23 April.

Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

ECONOMIC AND MONETARY UNION

Ordered,

That European Community Documents Nos. 7188/98 and 7161/98, relating to Economic and Monetary Union, shall not stand referred to European Standing Committee B.—[Mr. Dowd.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Thursday 30th April, Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Community documents) shall not apply to the Motion in the name of the Prime Minister relating to Economic and Monetary Union, and the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings thereon not later than Seven o'clock.—[Mr. Dowd.]

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 25 (Periodic Adjournments),

That this House, at its rising on Thursday 30th April, do adjourn till Tuesday 5th May.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Question agreed to.

TAX CREDITS (INITIAL EXPENDITURE) BILL

Ordered,

That, in respect of the Tax Credits (Initial Expenditure) Bill. notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.—[Mr. Dowd.]

DATA PROTECTION

Queen's recommendation having been signified—Resolved,

That the following provision shall be made with respect to the salary of the Data Protection Registrar:

(1) In respect of salary for service in the period starting with 1st April 1996 and ending with 31st March 1997 the Data Protection Registrar shall be paid the additional sum of £483.
(2) In respect of salary for service in the period starting with I st April 1997 and ending with 31st March 1998 the Data Protection Registrar shall be paid the sum of £62,001.
(3) In respect of service in the period starting with Ist April 1998 and ending with 30th November 1998 the salary of the Data Protection Registrar shall be £63,549 per annum.
(4) In respect of service in the period starting with 1st December 1998 and ending with 31st March 1999 the salary of the Data Protection Registrar shall be £64.484 per annum.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Prime Minister's Press Office

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Mr. Norman Baker: I am pleased to be able to raise this most important matter, which I know concerns many right hon. and hon. Members. I am sorry that the timing of the debate means that the Minister has not been able to return to his constituency to prepare for a good weekend. With no disrespect to him, however, it would have been more satisfactory to be able to hear from the Minister without Portfolio, who is mainly responsible for the presentation and co-ordination of Government policy. Perhaps the Government were keen to try to avoid a confrontation of that nature. I hope that that is not the case.
The issues that I shall raise may be batted away today, and the next time, and the time after that, but the Government are on a sticky wicket, and eventually they will find themselves out if they do not take action. I say that as someone who is broadly sympathetic to what the Government are trying to do; who believes that they have made great strides in some areas, notably constitutional reform; and who does not want to see the return of a Tory Government. I hope, therefore, that what I say will be taken in the constructive spirit in which it is intended.
My case is that, although the Government have done much to open the doors and let in fresh air, the method of operation of the press office runs counter to that. The very effectiveness of the Minister without Portfolio and of Mr. Alastair Campbell, the second Minister without Portfolio, and his colleagues is such that I believe that democratic accountability is being undermined. It is being undermined by the bypassing of Parliament by leaking stories to the media before Parliament is given the facts; by the use of the press office for party as opposed to Government purposes; by the incestuous relationship with Rupert Murdoch; and by the power apparently given by the Prime Minister to the unelected Mr. Campbell to order Cabinet Ministers about. I shall deal with each in turn.
Madam Speaker recently raised a most important and serious point, which deserves the serious attention of the House. Many Members, including me, feel strongly about the matter. I refer to the increasing tendency of the Government to leak news in advance to friendly media contacts, most notably in the Murdoch press. How many times have we woken up to a story in the newspapers heralding a Government announcement that trailed on behind in a statement at 3.30 pm? How many Budget leaks were there, playing up the good news and getting people accustomed to the bad, so that there would be a clearly positive reception for the event on the day? As Madam Speaker has said, all Governments have done it. She added that it had been "rather blatant" in the preceding six months.
In opposition, the Labour party was extremely good at news manipulation. I would take my hat off to it if I were wearing one—presumably it would be a top hat in this establishment. The Minister without Portfolio and Mr. Campbell are extremely effective. They played a major role in securing a Labour victory last year. To turn The Sun round from its Kinnock light bulb of 1992 to its support in 1997 was no mean feat.
The trouble now comes from that very effectiveness. What are the constraints upon the Minister without Portfolio and Mr. Campbell? Is it healthy that they should now continue to maximise their returns, when so many extra levers, and so many powerful ones, are now there to pull? A driver progressing from a Mini to a Jaguar?—the Deputy Prime Minister, perhaps—does not put his or her foot flat on the floor. He or she will drive at well below maximum power. That is responsible and in the interests of others—and ultimately, also, in the interests of the driver.
In a recent television interview, Madam Speaker rightly said:
There are far too many of what I would term apparatchiks who have been accustomed, when a party was in opposition, to want to get the maximum publicity. Now in government, they have to be harnessed a little more.
I entirely agree with Madam Speaker's sentiments.
Let me be clear. I am not criticising Mr. Campbell, who is only doing his job, and is doing it rather well. 1 am criticising the Prime Minister for allowing him too much leeway. I strongly suggest that he should now put a limit on the power afforded to his communications team. I shall be grateful if the Minister will give the House his personal opinion when he responds to the debate. I hope that such leeway is allowed on the Government Front Bench. I should be interested to know whether the Minister has drafted his speech or whether it has been provided for him to some degree from behind the scenes.
The Prime Minister recently made the revealing admission at Question Time that his chief press officer, a civil servant, did
an effective job of attacking the Conservative party."—[Official Report, 1 April 1998; Vol. 309, c. 1252.]
That was an amazing flash of honesty; clearly the Prime Minister was not on message at the time. Will the Minister say under what circumstances Mr. Campbell or any special adviser is given the authority to act party politically?
I am grateful to the Minister for referring me this morning to a document from the Library, the "Model Contract for Special Advisers". Paragraph viii at page 12 states that special advisers must not take part in political controversy, must observe discretion, and must express comment with moderation. I humbly suggest that those descriptions do not fit Mr. Campbell and his press team. Will the Minister clarify whether the Prime Minister regrets making such an overt comment about Mr. Campbell's political activities, or does he stick by it?
Party and Government interests appear to have become clouded and dangerously entangled. The Government must realise that the interests of the Labour party are not the same as those of the Government, let alone the country. Will the Minister confirm that the Government accept that?
The attendance of the chief press officer at Cabinet meetings is also a cause for considerable concern. Is he now the unofficial 23rd Cabinet Minister—a surrogate who is a Minister in all but name? I cannot help wondering what purpose is being served. Does the Minister agree with the Chairman of the Public Administration Committee, who said:
Alastair Campbell's attendance at Cabinet meetings is perhaps another step down the path towards a presidential system.

Does he agree with the Cabinet Minister who on Sunday 5 April told The Sunday Times:
It is all right if you are a fully paid-up Blairite. But if you are not, and you speak your mind in cabinet, there is a fear that No 10 will brief against you."?
That can only cause suspicion about the way in which the Government are dealing with Ministers, let alone Labour Back Benchers.
Hon. Members will recall that a stiff reprimand was recently delivered to the Secretary of State for Social Security in a letter from the press secretary which was published by the Sunday Express. According to the Sunday Express, Alastair Campbell wrote:
I see from today's papers that no matter how much we urge silence, congenital briefing goes on about who was responsible for what… I do not want to see interpretation of either in tomorrow's press. It is time facts took over from personalities.
Did the Prime Minister authorise the letter? Does he endorse unelected officials treating Ministers like naughty children who need their pocket money withdrawn? Is it not humiliating for a Minister to be treated in such a way? Ministers may be reluctant to say anything publicly in case an unflattering article about them appears in the Murdoch press the next day.
Will the Minister clarify the chief press secretary's role in internal disputes between Ministers? The Prime Minister should publish as soon as possible a document about the press office that sets out the powers and responsibilities of those in it, how far they can go and the role of the strategic communications unit. There should be personalised job descriptions for such apparatchiks: we need to know their powers in relation to Cabinet Ministers, and what line management exists.
The Minister will say that things were the same when Bernard Ingham was the voice of Margaret Thatcher. Perhaps they were in some ways, but I thought that the Government wanted no truck with the sleazy behaviour that characterised the previous Government. I know that things are different, but they are not different in this area. The Government should be new Labour, not old Tory.
There is a deeper problem. The importance afforded to media image in recent years is at such a level that it distracts people from real issues. Instead of deciding what the Government want to do and marketing that accordingly, it seems that much time is taken up with how something will play in the media, with policy consequences following on behind. We must guard against that.
Recently there has been publicity over the relationship between the Prime Minister and those in his circle with Rupert Murdoch. It seems that no offence must be given to Mr. Murdoch. His media ownership in this country, which, at 40 per cent., is excessive, must not be touched. The Lords amendment that would have limited his power is to be overturned. Does the Minister understand how uncomfortable his Labour colleagues are with that line? Perhaps he, too, is uncomfortable with it.
Between 1985 and 1995, Mr. Murdoch's company, News International, paid only £11.74 million in tax on profits of almost £1 billion, at a rate of 1.2p in the pound. Such generosity to an American citizen who was born in Australia can hardly help the Treasury. The motivation is clear: it is to keep Mr. Murdoch on board and his newspapers on side. 


All Governments want maximum media support, but what if the price is to allow distortion of the media market and to play down, even tone down, the Government's European policy and credentials, so that he who is alleged to be virulently anti-European is not upset? Should a Government acting in the interests of the country pay that price?
If that motivation seems far-fetched, let us consider the article in The Observer of 19 April, in which the Minister without Portfolio, the spin doctor in the House, spoke about the extraordinary importance that Downing street attaches to maintaining the support of Mr. Murdoch's newspapers. He suggested that the Prime Minister feels that he has to "convert Murdoch" before a referendum can be called on the European single currency. Incidentally, the Foreign Secretary revealed that the Cabinet was never consulted on that.
Perhaps the Prime Minister's recent willingness to help Mr. Murdoch with his Italian business interests was an attempt to make him more sympathetic to Europe. Helping Mr. Murdoch by personally discussing his business on the telephone with the Italian Prime Minister was a generous gesture on his part. We are lucky to have such a considerate and caring Prime Minister. What a shame that the episode has been surrounded by what the Labour Chair of the Public Administration Committee described as
the rather unedifying spectacle of half truths and non-denial denials".
At the beginning, the Prime Minister's official spokesman said that there was "no such phone call." The suggestion that our Prime Minister had helped Mr. Murdoch in that way was described as "a complete joke" by the Prime Minister's press secretary. The Financial Times revealed that an Italian official had confirmed the phone call and had told the paper that the impression that the Prime Minister was acting on behalf of Mr. Murdoch
would appear to make sense.
It was left to Mr. Murdoch's own paper, The Times, to confirm that the Prime Minister had indeed spoken to his Italian counterpart on Mr. Murdoch's behalf. No such phone call? A complete joke? If it was all so above board and proper, why was there a cover-up? We must conclude that senior Government figures have been somewhat economical with the truth from beginning to end. It seems that the Prime Minister is very much in bed with Mr. Murdoch, and I do not envy the Prime Minister in that respect.
This is all a pity, because the Government made such a good start with their freedom of information proposals. The episode is clearly at odds with the openness and progress elsewhere, although I note with interest a parliamentary answer that I received from the excellent and much leaked-against Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to the effect that the No.10 press office and the strategic communications unit will be covered by that forthcoming legislation. Perhaps that sort of commitment explains why the Chancellor of the Duchy is so often leaked against. His assurance is in marked contrast to the Prime Minister's recent answers on the same subject.
Inquiries about how much the strategic communications unit will cost the taxpayer have been answered in non-committal terms—"The budget has not been finalised," or, "The budget will be set in the usual way". I keenly await freedom of information legislation.
There are other connections between the Prime Minister and Mr. Murdoch. We recently learned that another member of the Prime Minister's press office, deputy press secretary Tim Allen, had jumped camp to take up a senior job with BSkyB. It seems that News International has hired the lobbying firm Lawson, Lucas, Mendelsohn, which is well placed to whisper in Government ears. Neal Lawson once worked for the Chancellor of the Exchequer; Ben Lucas for the Home Secretary; and John Mendelsohn for the Prime Minister. It seems that among their roles is work on media ownership legislation.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) recently joined in the widespread expressions of concern over the matter when he drew attention to it at Prime Minister's Question Time. He spoke about the "seemingly unstoppable growth" in the media power and political influence of Mr. Rupert Murdoch, saying that the Prime Minister must do something about media ownership, and that the only way of doing so was to amend the Competition Bill.
What is to be done to rectify these matters? The press function must be more accountable and less powerful, and that would be in the interests of democracy and of the Labour Government. As I said earlier, the Prime Minister should publish a paper setting out the exact remit of his press team. We need an annual report detailing the activities of the press office and an opportunity for Parliament to debate that. We need a commitment from the Prime Minister not to drive his press team with his foot to the floor, and a commitment that his press team will work in a Government rather than a party role. We need a commitment that important statements will be made first to the House and not leaked to the media in advance. Ministers must be allowed to do their jobs without being subjected to vilification by unelected officials and without having to worry about who is leaking against them.
I hope that the Government will take these issues seriously and will act accordingly. Will the Minister add his weight to such proposals? If he does, it will go some way towards addressing the many issues that I have raised.
I note that Mr. Campbell is due to appear before the Public Administration Committee in coming months to explain his actions in more detail because of the seriousness of the matter. I congratulate the Committee on its determination to hold the Government to account, and 1 look forward to reading its deliberations.
I hope that both the Minister and Government take on board the criticisms that I have raised—constructively, I hope—and continue down the road to fully accountable and transparent government. if the Government are brave, they will find many people to support them.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): I certainly put my weight behind all sorts of things. Whether I will put it behind the many contentions of the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) is a moot point. I came here to answer him on the subject of Prime Minister's press office, but, as usual in his scatter-gun approach, he seems to have ranged across a series of targets and, true to form, to have missed most of them.
The Government's overall political strategy, direction and style is set by the Prime Minister. As he has made clear, the Government intend to address serious problems with the consideration that they deserve. We shall co-ordinate the development of our policies within government, across departmental boundaries and in discussion with our private sector partners and the wider public and voluntary sectors. We shall communicate those policies clearly and coherently.
The Prime Minister has appointed his chief press secretary as a special adviser to advise him on the effective presentation of policy and to lead the No. 10 press office to ensure that the essential messages and key themes that underpin the Government's strategy are sustained. The strategic communications unit, which was established at the beginning of this year, adds a strategic dimension to the communication of Government policy. The unit reports to the Prime Minister's chief press secretary.
The No. 10 press office gives a clear sense of purpose and direction from the centre, liaising closely with departmental press offices, agreeing how departmental communications can best play into broader Government objectives, and ensuring that Government announcements are communicated in a structured and coherent manner—for example, through clearing major interview bids and the timing and form of announcements.
Authority for the co-ordinating and leadership role of the chief press secretary and the No. 10 press office flows from paragraph 88 of the ministerial code, which states:
In order to ensure the effective presentation of Government policy, all major interviews and media appearances, both print and broadcast, should be agreed with the No. 10 Press Office before any commitments are entered into. The policy content of all major speeches, press releases and new policy initiatives should be cleared in good time with the No. 10 Private Office, the timing and form of announcements should be cleared with the No. to Press Office".
That is not a new requirement; it has been the practice—as the hon. Gentleman said I would remark—of successive Administrations. The only difference is that this Government are enforcing the rule.
On the specific issue of the memo that was issued by the chief press secretary to the Secretary of State for Social Security and Minister for Women and to the Minister for Welfare Reform, that was issued on the authority of the Prime Minister. The chief press secretary was acting entirely within the rules.
Incidentally, the No. 10 press office is staffed mainly by career civil servants, but this Government take the view that the post of chief press secretary—a post in the most politically exposed area of government—should be performed by someone who is not expected to have to perform a similar role for another Government.
There are many precedents for political appointments to the chief press secretary job at No. 10; we have to think only of people such as Joe Haines, who fulfilled a similar role. As a Government, we wanted to be above board and open about our intentions for that role, which is why, immediately on our election to government, we amended the Civil Service Order in Council to allow a maximum of three special adviser posts in No. 10 to have executive powers, allowing the people occupying those posts to have civil servants working directly for them.
We have heard from those on the Opposition Benches that those appointments are the first steps towards the politicisation of the civil service. That is most definitely not the case.

Mr. Baker: Just for the record, that comment was made by the Chairman of the Select Committee on Public Administration, who is a Labour Member, and not by me.

Mr. Kilfoyle: It may have been made by a variety of people, but, as I have said, it has been made from those on the Opposition Benches.
The terms of the special adviser contract, of which the hon. Member for Lewes said that he was aware as a result of a debate on the radio this morning, allows the chief press secretary and other special advisers to discharge their role with a degree of party political commitment that would not be permissible for a permanent, politically impartial civil servant.
Special advisers are free from the obligation placed on all other civil servants to be politically impartial. Unlike other civil servants, special advisers are not required to act in a way that would enable them to gain the confidence of future Ministers of another Administration. We believe that, by distinguishing clearly and openly the roles of special advisers, it avoids any creeping politicisation.
The hon. Gentleman made certain charges, including the one that uncontrolled power was wielded by the chief press secretary. He said that we should exercise some constraint over the operation of the press office and that we needed some clarification in writing of the powers and role of the press office. That is rubbish, even by the hon. Gentleman's standards.
The chief press secretary, like all other civil servants, is accountable to a Minister, who in turn is accountable to Parliament. The terms and conditions of employment are based on provisions set out in the model contract. What can and cannot be done by special advisers, including the chief press secretary, in such circumstances are circumscribed by the model contract for special advisers, which is published; by the ministerial code, which is published; by guidance on the work of the government information service, which is published; and by the Mountfield report, which sets out the relationship between special advisers and members of the government information and communications service, and which is also published.
The hon. Gentleman also made the charge of statements being leaked to the press in advance of being made in Parliament, and suggested that that was somehow attributable to the chief press secretary. The ministerial code clearly states:
Ministers will want to bear in mind that the most important announcements should be made in the first instance to Parliament"—
and so they should. The hon. Gentleman referred to the letter from the chief press secretary to the Secretary of State for Social Security and Minister for Women and to the Minister for Welfare Reform. If he read the letter, he would recognise that the chief press secretary was exhorting people to stem the alleged leads from the Department.
The hon. Gentleman again spoke of an incestuous relationship with Mr. Rupert Murdoch, and linked it directly with the chief press secretary. Mr. Murdoch is


not treated any differently from anybody else. The hon. Gentleman referred to the telephone conversation between the Prime Minister and Mr. Prodi. Again, it has been made abundantly clear by the Prime Ministers and others that the reality is that the telephone call was initiated by Mr. Prodi, not the Prime Minister. My right hon. Friend has made it clear that he will go in to bat for any British company—indeed, he does so regularly. He did so for BSkyB.
The hon. Gentleman inferred that the chief press secretary speaks for the Labour party and so confuses his office. I want to make it clear here and now that the chief press secretary is not a spokesman for the Labour party; he is a spokesman for the Government and responsible for the presentation of Government policy. He also questioned whether the chief press secretary attends Cabinet meetings. There is nothing strange about civil servants attending Cabinet meetings as observers. If the hon. Gentleman wants to attribute some sinister motive to that, that is down to him. I assure him that he is far removed from the truth.
I wish that the hon. Gentleman would begin to understand the very different roles of the Minister without Portfolio and the chief press secretary. I do not know whether it is by design or through confusion, but he tends to mix up the two roles and the two personalities.
The hon. Gentleman referred to The Observer report of an anonymous member of the Cabinet who apparently made allegations about the way matters were conducted at No. 10. He should not expect anyone here to respond to anonymous allegations of any sort—whether they come from those on the Opposition Benches or those on the Government Benches, or are some fabrication by a third party.
The hon. Gentleman has also misunderstood line management in the context of the role of special advisers. It is abundantly clear exactly how the line management operates in terms of the chief press secretary's role in the press office at No. 10 and his relationship with the strategic communications unit. That unit was set up on the recommendation of the Mountfield report. As the hon. Gentleman knows, Robin Mountfield is a permanent secretary. The unit was set up with the full co-operation of the Government Information Service.
If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the civil service and, within that, the Government Information Service, would willingly lie down either before the politicisation of the civil service or before particular individuals or politicians trying to ride roughshod over its interests and

professionalism, he not only misunderstands the civil service, and in particular the Government Information Service, but demeans its professionalism.
Civil servants are as interested as any politician in presenting for the Government of the day an effective case for Government policy. Clearly, politicians would be partial and political, but civil servants are not. They are professional people who accept that, with a change of Government, changing personalities and, indeed, changing times, the way in which the Government's message is communicated, across government, in the House and certainly to the wider public, is a matter to be reviewed. They have been extremely supportive.

Mr. Baker: For the record, I make it clear that I am in no way impugning the civil service; I was talking about the special advisers.

Mr. Kilfoyle: I accept that the hon. Gentleman made no direct imputation that the civil service was somehow weak or vacillating, but the thrust of his argument that there are certain special advisers and, indeed, elected politicians who ride roughshod over the service does not do sufficient credit to its professionalism and the fact that its members would respond dutifully according to their own code of conduct. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman seriously misunderstands that they appreciate that they have a very different role from that of the special advisers, which is especially so in the case of the job that the chief press secretary has.
I found some of the hon. Gentleman's charges a bit rich—he said that, somehow, the Government's message was being distorted and that we were not being wholly truthful about the way in which the press machines operates, whether in No. 10 or elsewhere—given that he represents a party renowned for the use of, for example, the focus leaflet. That leaflet is famous for its mixture of half-truths, innuendo and downright lies—it is a Heinz 57 variety of politics. A different version of that leaflet is appearing for different councils in different parts of the country, so we shall take no lectures from the hon. Gentleman or his party.
I submit that the No. 10 press office is performing a function that is key to success of the Government's communications strategy. It is working well—excellently, in fact. Nothing that we have heard today suggests otherwise. Indeed, the fact that some Opposition Members are reduced to attacking us on this matter rather than on any serious policy issue confirms just how well the No. 10 press office is performing that task.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes past Three o'clock.